An account of a new theory and method of voting, judging and ranking, majority judgment, shown to be superior to all other known methods. In Majority Judgment, Michel Balinski and Rida Laraki argue that the traditional theory of social choice offers no acceptable solution to the problems of how to elect, to judge, or to rank. They find that the traditional model—transforming the "preference lists" of individuals into a "preference list" of society—is fundamentally flawed in both theory and practice. Balinski and Laraki propose a more realistic model. It leads to an entirely new theory and method—majority judgment—proven superior to all known methods. It is at once meaningful, resists strategic manipulation, elicits honesty, and is not subject to the classical paradoxes encountered in practice, notably Condorcet's and Arrow's. They offer theoretical, practical, and experimental evidence—from national elections to figure skating competitions—to support their arguments. Drawing on insights from wine, sports, music, and other competitions, Balinski and Laraki argue that the question should not be how to transform many individual rankings into a single collective ranking, but rather, after defining a common language of grades to measure merit, how to transform the many individual evaluations of each competitor into a single collective evaluation of all competitors. The crux of the matter is a new model in which the traditional paradigm—to compare—is replaced by a new paradigm—to evaluate.

In the evolving field of Political Science, grasping innovative electoral methods is key to improving democratic decision-making. "Majority Judgment" offers an in-depth look at a transformative voting system called Majority Judgment, detailing its principles, applications, and significance for democracy. This book is a must-read for anyone interested in modern electoral systems and their role in ensuring fair elections. 1-Majority Judgment-Understand the basics of Majority Judgment and its approach to fair voting. 2-Score Voting-Discover how Score Voting compares with Majority Judgment in enhancing voter satisfaction. 3-Condorcet Method-Learn about the Condorcet Method and its connection to Majority Judgment. 4-Copeland's Method-Examine how Copeland’s Method addresses strategic voting issues. 5-Bucklin Voting-Explore Bucklin Voting and its link to Majority Judgment principles. 6-Ranked Pairs-Understand how Ranked Pairs achieves consensus winners and relates to Majority Judgment. 7-Instant-Runoff Voting-Compare the simplicity of Instant-Runoff Voting with Majority Judgment. 8-Comparison of Electoral Systems-Compare different electoral systems and their strengths alongside Majority Judgment. 9-Evaluative Voting-Learn about Evaluative Voting and its role in Majority Judgment. 10-Usual Judgment-Understand Usual Judgment and its connection to Majority Judgment. 11-Strategic Voting-Address how Majority Judgment mitigates the effects of Strategic Voting. 12-Condorcet Winner Criterion-Learn about the Condorcet Winner Criterion and its relation to Majority Judgment. 13-Participation Criterion-Discover how Majority Judgment supports the Participation Criterion. 14-Majority Criterion-Explore how Majority Judgment ensures a majority-supported winner. 15-Consistency Criterion-Analyze how Majority Judgment meets the Consistency Criterion. 16-Mutual Majority Criterion-Understand the Mutual Majority Criterion and how it aligns with Majority Judgment. 17-Condorcet Loser Criterion-Learn how Majority Judgment avoids electing the least-preferred candidate. 18-Reversal Symmetry-Discover how Majority Judgment upholds fairness in reversed preferences. 19-Cardinal Voting-Explore the evaluative approach of Cardinal Voting and its link to Majority Judgment. 20-STAR Voting-Analyze how STAR Voting combines aspects of Score Voting and Majority Judgment. 21-Highest Median Voting Rules-Learn how Highest Median Voting Rules relate to Majority Judgment. "Majority Judgment" provides a comprehensive examination of electoral systems, offering professionals, students, and enthusiasts valuable insights into democratic processes. Its analysis extends beyond surface-level knowledge, providing a rich exploration of the impact of various voting methods.

In the modern era, representation is the hallmark of democracy, and electoral rules structure how representation works and how effectively governments perform. Moreover, of the key structural variables in constitutional design, it is the choice of electoral system that is usually the most open to change. There are three distinctive approaches to electoral system research. One, associated largely with economics, involves the study of electoral system effects through the deductive method, using mathematical tools to derive theorems about the properties of voting methods and behaviors. A second, associated largely with political science, has a primarily empirical focus, and looks in depth at how electoral rules impact on political outcomes, through large cross-sectional or case studies. A third, and more recent tradition, inspired largely by work in experimental economics, involves experimentation, either in the form of controlled laboratory experiments or in the form of in situ field studies. This volume employs the third approach to report on experiments that look at alternatives to the present two round (majority runoff) system used for the election of French presidents. This system is of considerable importance not just because of its use in France but also because of its wide adoption in presidential elections in new democracies, such as Bulgaria, Poland, Romania, Russia and Ukraine. The editors have assembled the top experimental economists and political scientists specializing in French politics to provide in-depth analysis of the double ballot electoral system, and, more broadly, of the effect of electoral rules on the number of candidates, voter strategies, and ideological choice. Ultimately, the editors and contributors argue that experimental methods have great potential to inform our understanding of institutional mechanisms in the context of voting behavior.

The Model Rules of Professional Conduct provides an up-to-date resource for information on legal ethics. Federal, state and local courts in all jurisdictions look to the Rules for guidance in solving lawyer malpractice cases, disciplinary actions, disqualification issues, sanctions questions and much more. In this volume, black-letter Rules of Professional Conduct are followed by numbered Comments that explain each Rule's purpose and provide suggestions for its practical application. The Rules will help you identify proper conduct in a variety of given situations, review those instances where discretionary action is possible, and define the nature of the relationship between you and your clients, colleagues and the courts.

Winner of the Inner Temple book prize 2015 and the Socio-Legal Studies Association Book prize 2014/15 The House of Lords, for over 300 years the UK's highest court, was transformed in 2009 into the UK Supreme Court. This book provides a compelling and unrivalled view into the workings of the Court during its final decade, and into the formative years of the Supreme Court. Drawing on over 100 interviews, including more than 40 with Law Lords and Justices, and uniquely, some of their judicial notebooks, this is a landmark study of appellate judging 'from the inside' by an author whose earlier work on the House of Lords has provided a scholarly benchmark for over 30 years. The book demonstrates that appellate decision-making in the UK's final court remains a social and collective process, primarily because of the dialogues which take place between the judges and the key groups with which they interact when reaching their decisions. As the book shows, the forms of dialogue are now more varied, yet the most significant dialogues continue to be with their fellow Law Lords and Justices, and with counsel. To these, new dialogues have been added, namely those with foreign courts (especially Strasbourg) and with judicial assistants, which have subtly altered the tenor and import of their other dialogues. The research reveals that, unlike the English Court of Appeal, the House of Lords in its last decade was only intermittently collegial since Lord Bingham's philosophy of appellate judging left opinion writing, concurrences and dissents largely to individual preference. In the Supreme Court, however, there has been a marked shift to team working and collective decision-making bringing with it challenges and occasional tensions not seen in the final years of the House of Lords. The work shows that effectiveness in group-decision making in the final court turns in part on the stages when dialogues occur, in part on the geography of the court and in part on the task leadership and social leadership skills of the judges involved in particular cases. The passing of the Human Rights Act and the expansion in judicial review over the last 30 years have dramatically altered the two remaining dialogues - those with Parliament and with the Executive. With the former, the dialogue has grown more distant, with the latter, more problematic, than was the case 40 years ago. The last chapter rehearses where the changing dialogues have left the UK's final court. Ironically, despite the oft applauded commitment of the new Court to public visibility, the book concludes that even greater transparency in the dialogue with the public may be required. 'The way appellate judges at the highest level behave to each other, to counsel, with other branches of government and with other courts is brought under closer scrutiny in this book than ever before...The remarkable width and depth of his examination...has resulted in a work of real scholarship, which all those who are interested in how appellate courts work all over the common law world will find especially valuable.' From the foreword by Lord Hope of Craighead KT 'Alan Paterson's knowledge and interest in the Supreme Court, coupled with his expertise as a lawyer who understands the legal system and the judicial process, make him a perfect chronicler and assessor of what the Court's role is and what it should be, and how it functions and how it might improve.' Lord Neuberger, President of the Supreme Court

Classic Books Library presents this brand new edition of “The Federalist Papers”, a collection of separate essays and articles compiled in 1788 by Alexander Hamilton. Following the United States Declaration of Independence in 1776, the governing doctrines and policies of the States lacked cohesion. “The Federalist”, as it was previously known, was constructed by American statesman Alexander Hamilton, and was intended to catalyse the ratification of the United States Constitution. Hamilton recruited fellow statesmen James Madison Jr., and John Jay to write papers for the compendium, and the three are known as some of the Founding Fathers of the United States. Alexander Hamilton (c. 1755–1804) was an American lawyer, journalist and highly influential government official. He also served as a Senior Officer in the Army between 1799-1800 and founded the Federalist Party, the system that governed the nation’s finances. His contributions to the Constitution and leadership made a significant and lasting impact on the early development of the nation of the United States.

The public image of judges has been stuck in a time warp; they are invariably depicted in the media - and derided in public bars up and down the country - as 'privately educated Oxbridge types', usually 'out-of-touch', and more often than not as 'old men'. These and other stereotypes - the judge as a pervert, the judge as a right-wing monster - have dogged the judiciary long since any of them ceased to have any basis in fact. Indeed the limited research that was permitted in the 1960s and 1970s tended to reinforce several of these stereotypes. Moreover, occasional high profile incidents in the courts, elaborated with the help of satirists such as 'Private Eye' and 'Monty Python', have ensured that the 'old white Tory judge' caricature not only survives but has come to be viewed as incontestable. Since the late 1980s the judiciary has changed, largely as a result of the introduction of training and new and more transparent methods of recruitment and appointment. But how much has it changed, and what are the courts like after decades of judicial reform? Given unprecedented access to the whole range of courts - from magistrates' courts to the Supreme Court - Penny Darbyshire spent seven years researching the judges, accompanying them in their daily work, listening to their conversations, observing their handling of cases and the people who come before them, and asking them frank and searching questions about their lives, careers and ambitions. What emerges is without doubt the most revealing and compelling picture of the modern judiciary in England and Wales ever seen. From it we learn that not only do the old stereotypes not hold, but that modern 'baby boomer' judges are more representative of the people they serve and that the reforms are working. But this new book also gives an unvarnished glimpse of the modern courtroom which shows a legal system under stress, lacking resources but facing an ever-increasing caseload. This book will be essential reading for anyone wishing to know about the experience of modern judging, the education, training and professional lives of judges, and the current state of the courts and judiciary in England and Wales.

Good Judgment, based upon the author's experience as a lawyer, law professor, and judge, explores the role of the judge and the art of judging. Engaging with the American, English, and Commonwealth literature on the role of the judge in the common law tradition, Good Judgment addresses the following questions: What exactly do judges do? What is properly within their role and what falls outside? How do judges approach their decision-making task? In an attempt to explain and reconcile two fundamental features of judging, namely judicial choice and judicial discipline, this book explores the nature and extent of judicial choice in the common law legal tradition and the structural features of that tradition that control and constrain that element of choice. As Sharpe explains, the law does not always provide clear answers, and judges are often left with difficult choices to make, but the power of judicial choice is disciplined and constrained and judges are not free to decide cases according to their own personal sense of justice. Although Good Judgment is accessibly written to appeal to the non-specialist reader with an interest in the judicial process, it also tackles fundamental issues about the nature of law and the role of the judge and will be of particular interest to lawyers, judges, law students, and legal academics.

What does it mean when a judge in a court of law uses the phrase “common sense”? Is it a type of evidence or a mode of reasoning? In a world characterized by material and political inequalities, whose common sense should inform the law? Common Sense and Legal Judgment explores this rhetorically powerful phrase, arguing that common sense, when invoked in political and legal discourses without adequate reflection, poses a threat to the quality and legitimacy of legal judgment. Often operating in the service of conservatism, populism, or majoritarianism, common sense can harbour stereotypes, reproduce unjust power relations, and silence marginalized people. Nevertheless, drawing the works of theorists such as Thomas Reid, Antonio Gramsci, and Hannah Arendt into conversation with rulings by the Supreme Court of Canada, Patricia Cochran demonstrates that with careful attention, the democratic, egalitarian, and community-sustaining aspects of common sense can be brought to light. A call for critical self-reflection and the close scrutiny of power relationships and social contexts, this book is a direct response to social justice predicaments and their confounding relationships to law. Creative and interdisciplinary, Common Sense and Legal Judgment reinvigorates feminist and anti-poverty understandings of judgment, knowledge, justice, and accountability.

In Mighty Judgment Philip Slayton describes the important issues the Supreme Court decides for individual Canadians and for Canada as a nation, and the surprising and dramatic ways in which these decisions shape our future. In the Morgentaler case (1988), the court struck down laws restricting abortion, leaving Canada the only Western country without any abortion laws. In the Same-Sex Marriage Reference (2004), it decided that gays and lesbians could marry. In the Secession Reference (1998), it laid down the conditions under which Quebec could secede from Canada. In the Patrick case (2009), the court decided that the right of privacy does not stop the police from rifling through our garbage. More recently, the court administered a tongue-lashing to the federal government over its treatment of Canadian youth Omar Khadr, accused by the United States government of fighting with the Taliban. Mighty Judgment makes clear that the Supreme Court of Canada is a political institution, and that judges are politicians. But unlike other politicians, judges cannot be voted out of office. Slayton discusses reforms that will be needed, particularly in the way judges are chosen, once we recognize that the court decides policy and plays a pivotal role in governing Canada.