Butler and Pogrebna (2018) devised triples of three-branch gambles theorized to violate transitivity of preference according to a most probable winner model. According to this model, a person chooses the option that has the higher probability to yield a better outcome than the other alternative. They tested 11 triples with 100 participants and found cases that appeared to violate weak stochastic transitivity and the triangle inequality. But tests of weak stochastic transitivity and the triangle inequality do not provide a proper method to compare transitive and intransitive models that allow mixtures of preference patterns and random errors. Those older methods can yield false conclusions regarding transitivity, for example, if different participants have different true preferences or if different choice problems have different rates of error. This paper reanalyzes their data using a true and error (TE) model, which does not require these unrealistic assumptions, and which provides estimates of the incidence of transitive and intransitive behavior in a mixture. Reanalysis indicated that 3 of the 11 triples showed convincing evidence of violations of transitivity in the opposite direction of the predictions of the most probable winner model. Further, these and other triples showed other significant violations of the most probable winner model. Despite some violations of the true and error model, the data of Butler and Pogrebna appear to contradict not only transitive utility models but they also refute the most probable winner model as a descriptive theory of choice behavior.

Birnbaum and Quispe-Torreblanca (2018) presented a frequentist analysis of a family of six True and Error (TE) models for the analysis of two choice problems presented twice to each participant. Lee (2018) performed a Bayesian analysis of the same models, and found very similar parameter estimates and conclusions for the same data. He also discussed some potential differences between Bayesian and frequentist analyses and interpretations for model comparisons. This paper responds to certain points of possible controversy regarding model selection that attempt to take into account the concept of flexibility or complexity of a model. Reasons to question the use of Bayes factors to decide among models differing in fit and complexity are presented. The partially nested inter-relations among the six TE models are represented in a Venn diagram. Another view of model complexity is presented in terms of possible sets of data that could fit a model rather than in terms of possible sets of parameters that do or do not fit a given set of data. It is argued that less complex theories are not necessarily more likely to be true, and when the space of all possible theories is not well-defined, one should be cautious in interpreting calculated posterior probabilities that appear to prove a theory to be true.

This article aims to say what democracy is or what the predicate ‘democratic’ means, as opposed to saying what is good, right, or desirable about it. The basic idea—by no means a novel one—is that a democratic system is one that features substantial equality of political power. More distinctively it is argued that ‘democratic’ is a relative gradable adjective, the use of which permits different, contextually determined thresholds of democraticness. Thus, a system can be correctly called ‘democratic’ even if it does not feature perfect equality of power. The article's central undertaking is to give greater precision to the operative notion(s) of power. No complete or fully unified measure of power is offered, but several conceptual tools are introduced that help give suitable content to power measurement. These tools include distinctions between conditional versus unconditional power and direct versus indirect power. Using such tools, a variety of prima facie problems for the power equality approach are addressed and defused. Finally, the theory is compared to epistemic and deliberative approaches to democracy; and reasons are offered for the attractiveness of democracy that flows from the power equality theme.