Méthode de meilleure médianeLes méthodes de meilleure médiane sont des modes de scrutin du type vote par valeurs, où le candidat qui l'emporte est un candidat ayant obtenu la meilleure évaluation médiane. En effet, dans un vote par valeurs, chaque électeur évalue les différents candidats sur une échelle ordonnée, numérique ou verbale. Les différentes méthodes de meilleure médiane se distinguent par l'échelle de valeur utilisée et par leur traitement des ex aequo, c'est-à-dire par la méthode de classement des candidats ayant obtenu la même évaluation médiane.
Méthode BordaLa méthode Borda est un système de vote pondéré. Ses premières utilisations sont très anciennes, puisqu'elle a été utilisée par le sénat romain jusqu'à l'an 105. Elle a été formalisée en 1770 par Jean-Charles de Borda, un contemporain de Condorcet. La méthode qu'il proposait était une alternative à la méthode Condorcet que Borda jugeait certes équitable mais difficile à mettre en œuvre. Une polémique a opposé ces deux hommes, chacun défendant sa méthode comme étant la plus équitable.
Score votingScore voting or range voting is an electoral system for single-seat elections, in which voters give each candidate a score, the scores are added (or averaged), and the candidate with the highest total is elected. It has been described by various other names including evaluative voting, utilitarian voting, interval measure voting, the point system, ratings summation, 0-99 voting, average voting and utility voting. It is a type of cardinal voting electoral system, and aims to implement the utilitarian social choice rule.
Méthode de CondorcetLa méthode Condorcet (aussi appelée scrutin de Condorcet ou vote Condorcet) est un système de vote obéissant au principe de Condorcet qui s'énonce ainsi : Le vainqueur, s'il existe, est donc le candidat qui, comparé tour à tour à chacun des autres candidats, s’avère à chaque fois être le candidat préféré. Autrement dit, il bat tous les autres en duel. Un tel candidat est appelé vainqueur de Condorcet. Rien ne garantit la présence d'un candidat satisfaisant à ce critère de victoire : c'est le paradoxe de Condorcet.
Participation criterionThe participation criterion is a voting system criterion. Voting systems that fail the participation criterion are said to exhibit the no show paradox and allow a particularly unusual strategy of tactical voting: abstaining from an election can help a voter's preferred choice win. The criterion has been defined as follows: In a deterministic framework, the participation criterion says that the addition of a ballot, where candidate A is strictly preferred to candidate B, to an existing tally of votes should not change the winner from candidate A to candidate B.
Condorcet loser criterionIn single-winner voting system theory, the Condorcet loser criterion (CLC) is a measure for differentiating voting systems. It implies the majority loser criterion but does not imply the Condorcet winner criterion. A voting system complying with the Condorcet loser criterion will never allow a Condorcet loser to win. A Condorcet loser is a candidate who can be defeated in a head-to-head competition against each other candidate.
Preferential votingPreferential voting or preference voting (PV) may refer to different election systems or groups of election systems: Ranked voting methods, all election methods that involve ranking candidates in order of preference (American literature) Optional preferential voting Instant-runoff voting, referred to as "preferential voting" in Australia and as "ranked choice voting" in United States, is one type of ranked voting method. Contingent vote (the top-two variant of IRV) Single transferable vote (referred to as "
Later-no-help criterionThe later-no-help criterion is a voting system criterion formulated by Douglas Woodall. The criterion is satisfied if, in any election, a voter giving an additional ranking or positive rating to a less-preferred candidate can not cause a more-preferred candidate to win. Voting systems that fail the later-no-help criterion are vulnerable to the tactical voting strategy called mischief voting, which can deny victory to a sincere Condorcet winner.
Independence of clones criterionIn voting systems theory, the independence of clones criterion measures an election method's robustness to strategic nomination. Nicolaus Tideman was the first to formulate this criterion, which states that the winner must not change due to the addition of a non-winning candidate who is similar to a candidate already present. To be more precise, a subset of the candidates, called a set of clones, exists if no voter ranks any candidate outside the set between (or equal to) any candidates that are in the set.
Majority loser criterionThe majority loser criterion is a criterion to evaluate single-winner voting systems. The criterion states that if a majority of voters prefers every other candidate over a given candidate, then that candidate must not win. Either of the Condorcet loser criterion or the mutual majority criterion implies the majority loser criterion. However, the Condorcet criterion does not imply the majority loser criterion, since the minimax method satisfies the Condorcet but not the majority loser criterion.
