From b673e3f04b45da78fb982900c10af4db529c0b29 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Julien Moutinho <julm+hjugement@autogeree.net> Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 01:58:43 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Improve documentation. --- README.md | 75 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- hjugement.cabal | 12 ++++++-- 2 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-) diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index 4511ccc..9bc857c 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ ## Common language -The Majority Judgment asks us to answer to a specific, operationally pertinent, +The Majority Judgment asks us to answer to a specific, operationally actionable, question about several choices, by judging each choice in an absolute way (i.e. such that the removal or addition of choices does not change our evaluation of the other choices) @@ -18,27 +18,44 @@ being reinforced by the practice of judgments. ### Examples Examples of common scales could be: -- [âNoâ, âNo, butâ, âYes, butâ, âYesâ] for adhesion, +- [âTo Rejectâ, âInsufficientâ, âAcceptableâ, âGoodâ, âVery Goodâ] for quality, +- [âVery Badâ, âBadâ, âRather Badâ, âRather Goodâ, âGoodâ, âVery Goodâ] for quality, +- [âStrongly Againstâ, âAgainstâ, âRather Againstâ, âIndifferentâ, âRather Forâ, âForâ, âStrongly Forâ] for adhesion, +- [âVery Wrongâ, âWrongâ, âRather Wrongâ, âRather Wellâ, âWellâ, âVery Wellâ] for rightness, - [âNoneâ, âNot Enoughâ, âEnoughâ, âMuchâ, âToo Muchâ] for quantity, - [âTo Doâ, âPrioritizedâ, âBlockingâ, âUrgentâ, âToo Urgentâ] for priority, -- [âUselessâ, âInterestingâ, âUsefulâ, âIndispensableâ, âEnslavingâ] for utility, -- [âTo Rejectâ, âInsufficientâ, âAcceptableâ, âGoodâ, âVery Goodâ, âToo Goodâ] for quality. +- [âUselessâ, âInterestingâ, âUsefulâ, âIndispensableâ, âEnslavingâ] for utility. + +Note that the more a scale enables to judge in the absolute, +the more resistant to Arrow's paradox it is. +Here, depending on the judges, +some of the above scales using the âVery Xâ/âXâ/âRather Xâ structure, +may be too subjective to discourage the relative comparison of choices, +this said, if it is the exact expressions used in everyday parlance, +it may be sensible to use them. +In any case, to not confuse/skew the judgments it is important +that a scale spans only on a single dimension/criteria. ## Judging one choice -For each choice taken separately, -each grade of the scale is associated to the number -of individual judgments which have given this grade to this choice. -(eg. for 5 judges: [âInsufficientâ, âAcceptableâ, âAcceptableâ, âGoodâ, âGoodâ]) -This forms a dilated scale where each grade is expanded (resp. shrunk) -when more (resp. less) supported than the others. -Like this, the only grade which is defended by an absolute majority -begining from one side of the scale, -without being rejected by an absolute majority -beginning from the other side of the scale, -is the one which spans over the middlemost -of this dilated scale (here: âAcceptableâ). -This is the most consensual majority grade for this choice. +The âmajority gradeâ is the fundamental indicator of the Majority Judgment. +Located at the middle of the distribution of grades obtained by a choice, +it is also known by high school students under the name âmedianâ, +that is to say, the grade such that 50% of grades are lower or egal to it, +and 50% are greater or egal to it. +Such that regardless the way we look at it, +there is always an absolute majority among the judges +which agree to defend the majority grade against any other grade. +In other words: whoever among the judges is against, is necessarily in minority. +Therefore, the majority grade brings the judges together by minimizing +the number of unsatisfied among them. +Like so, the majority grade enables us to overcome the old notion of majority +expressed on the count of our scattered voices, which divides us. + +Moreover, one can see that the farest an individual judgment is +from the majoritary grade, the less impact it has on the result. +This rewards honest individual judgments, +by ignoring as near as may be the most cranky or strategic judgements. If the number of individual judgments is small and even (eg. for 6 judges: [âInsufficientâ, âAcceptableâ, âAcceptableâ, âGoodâ, âGoodâ, âGoodâ]), @@ -49,27 +66,21 @@ and thus is considered to be the most consensual. Indeed, if any other choice obtains less scattered judgments (eg. [âAcceptableâ, âAcceptableâ, âAcceptableâ, âAcceptableâ, âGoodâ, âGoodâ]) all enclosed into these two grades, -it will obtain a most consensual majoritary grade +it will obtain a majoritary grade greater or egal (here: âAcceptableâ) to the one of this choice. Which would not necessarily be the case with the greater grade (here: âGoodâ). ## Ranking many choices -To sort many choices means being able to compare them two-by-two, -which is done according to their most consensual majority grade. -In case of equality, the minimum individual judgments of this grade -are removed from both dilated scales so that one of them has no longer any, -then the comparison goes on with the new most consensual majority grades. -Like this, either a choice is judged higher than the other, -by the geatest number of judgments which differenciate them according -to a most consensual majoritary grade, +The ranking of choices is done by comparing their respective majority grades. +Those obtaining the same majority grade are compared further +by applying again the principle of minimizing unsatisfied judges : +one judgment giving this majority grade is removed of their distributions +until two different majority grades are obtained, or both choices precisely have the same distribution of individual judgments. - -One can see that the farest an individual judgment is -from the most consensual majoritary grade, -the less impact it has on the result. -This rewards honest individual judgments, -by ignoring as near as may be the most cranky or strategic judgements. +In which case, it is enough that one judge +change the grade it gives to at least one of those choices, +and/or it may be wise to also judge on other criterias. ## Properties diff --git a/hjugement.cabal b/hjugement.cabal index 8e0b524..ab8066a 100644 --- a/hjugement.cabal +++ b/hjugement.cabal @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ name: hjugement -- PVP: +-+------- breaking API changes -- | | +----- non-breaking API additions -- | | | +--- code changes with no API change -version: 2.0.0.20180903 +version: 2.0.0.20181030 category: Politic synopsis: Majority Judgment. description: @@ -17,7 +17,8 @@ description: . * the accompanying README.md file (en), * Marjolaine Leray's comic: <https://www.lechoixcommun.fr/articles/Vous_reprendrez_bien_un_peu_de_democratie-2.html Vous reprendrez bien un peu de démocratie ?> (fr), - * the dedicated web sites: <https://mieuxvoter.fr> and <https://lechoixcommun.fr>, + * the dedicated web sites: <https://mieuxvoter.fr> (fr) and <https://lechoixcommun.fr> (fr), + * a press article I've written: <http://autogeree.net/~julm/txt/jugement_majoritaire.pdf> (fr), * or watch: Rida Laraki's conference: <https://mixitconf.org/2017/majority-judgment Le Jugement Majoritaire> (fr). . For comprehensive studies, you can read Michel Balinski and Rida Laraki's: @@ -25,7 +26,12 @@ description: * textbook: <http://libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=BF67AA4298C1CE7633187546AA53E01D Majority Judgment: Measuring, Ranking, and Electing> (en) * cahier: <http://www.lamsade.dauphine.fr/sites/default/IMG/pdf/cahier_377.pdf Majority Judgment vs. Majority Rule> (en) * paper: <https://1007421605497013616-a-1802744773732722657-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/ridalaraki/xfiles/BalinskiLarakiJudgeDontVotecahierderecherche2010-27.pdf Judge : Don't Vote!> (en) - * article: <https://www.cairn.info/revue-francaise-d-economie-2012-4-page-11.htm Jugement majoritaire versus vote majoritaire (via les présidentielles 2011-2012)> (fr) + * article: <https://www.cairn.info/revue-francaise-d-economie-2012-4-page-11.htm Jugement majoritaire versus vote majoritaire (via les présidentielles 2011-2012)> (fr). + . + And, if you do not mind to dive into a quick and poorly documented code, + you can also play around with a Python macro to Libre Office + that I've written and embedded into this spreadsheet: + <http://autogeree.net/~julm/txt/jugements.ods>. extra-doc-files: README.md license: GPL-3 license-file: COPYING -- 2.47.0