Demystifying the 'Metric Approach to Social Compromise with the Unanimity Criterion'

In a recent book and earlier studies, Donald Saari well clarifies the source of three classical impossibility theorems in social choice and proposes possible escape out of these negative results. The objective of this note is to illustrate the relevance of these explanations in justifying the metric approach to the social compromise with the unanimity criterion.social choice, impossibility theorems, metric approach to compromise with the unanimity criterion

Group judgement with ties. A position-based approach

A system for defining the positions taken by alternatives under preference orders proposed by Cook and Seiford is discussed. This makes it possible to apply some positional methods of group judgement to the case of ties in experts’ opinions, as well as in group judgements. Numerical examples are presented.tied alternatives in experts’ opinions, tied alternatives in group judgement, positional methods of making a group judgement

National priorities for dementia care : perspectives of individuals living with dementia and their care partners

The current article reports the consensus recommendations from individuals living with dementia and their care partners on priorities for public policy and research funding, which were found using a nationwide, Delphi study. A modified snowball sample was used. Listservs, personal contacts, and advocacy groups were asked to distribute the survey. Paper versions were provided upon request. In Rounds 1 and 2 of the study, 388 and 301 responses, respectively, were received. Borda counts produced a ranked order consensus of priorities. Research ranked third, after the need for caregiver support and resources for the provision of long-term care. Education and training in person-centered practices for all care partners was also a high priority. Responses indicated that research funding should be expanded beyond its current emphasis on cure. Policymakers should reconsider the current priorities of the National Alzheimer's Project Act to better address the long-term needs of individuals living with dementia and their care partners

Book Review

This review of Leo Katz\u27s book, Why the Law is So Perverse, addresses three questions. First, does Katz draw the appropriate normative conclusions about legal perversities based on their connections to social choice theory? In other words, what are the legal ethics and professionalism implications of his book? Second, how does each of the legal perversities in the book follow from a particular social choice theory result? In other words, what is the precise theoretical connection between each of the legal perversities discussed and an impossibility theorem in social choice theory? Third, can we reinterpret our understanding of the seemingly dismal and negative impossibility theorems from social choice in a constructive and positive way to suggest how society can make the best of legal perversities? In other words, what are benign interpretations and positive versions of the social choice impossibility theorems and their implications for how society can deal with what Katz calls legal perversities

To Save Our Species But How Do We Make Collective Decisions?

Throughout human history, havoc has been wrought by just a handful of very powerful leaders. The ultimate catastrophe could also be caused by just a few individuals, by unleashing a nuclear war or by ignoring international agreements on climate change. Donald Trump, for example, may renege on the Paris Agreement and commit other ecological blunders, which could spell the end for everyone. In a nutshell, the current democratic process gives him far too much power. The rights of any one citizen or country must be tempered by the rights of all. Alas, current forms of decision-making often fail to involve everyone in the final decision, the most obvious instances relating to decisions taken by a (simple or weighted) majority vote. If instead decision-making were based on the local, national or international consensus, such exclusive decisions could not be taken so easily. It should also be pointed out that majoritarianism – majority rule based on majority voting – has been and still is problematic in numerous inter-communal conflicts. This paper therefore outlines the flaws involved in binary voting; next, as a better methodology, it proposes a more inclusive voting mechanism; and finally, it advocates a structure to ensure that agreements are implemented, with possible penalties for those individuals, organisations or countries that flaunt the international consensus

MAJORITY RULE: A DYSFUNCTIONAL POLITY CONSENSUS: AN INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY

Numerous electoral systems have been devised over the years but, in decision-making, many forums still rely on the same procedure that was used in ancient Greece: majority voting. Hence, majority rule. In many plural multi-ethnic and/or multi-religious societies, the effects have often been negative. This article considers voting procedures in three inter-related contexts: decision-making, elections, and governance. With regard to conflicts in Northern Ireland, the Balkans, and Ukraine, it shows, both in decision-making and in elections, how simplistic win-or-lose ballots have exacerbated tensions. And it then suggests a more inclusive polity in which win-win voting systems might help to alleviate these differences. Indeed, if a more accurate measure of the collective will could be deployed, and if that mechanism were non-majoritarian, there would be little or no basis for majority rule. Instead, reliance could be placed on inclusive structures: preference voting in decision-making, and all-party coalitions in government