Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Group Decision and Negotiation 5/2016

27-02-2016

Further Support for Ranking Candidates in Elections

Authors: William V. Gehrlein, Dominique Lepelley, Florenz Plassmann

Published in: Group Decision and Negotiation | Issue 5/2016

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

We compare the Condorcet Efficiencies of the plurality rule, the negative plurality rule, and the Borda rule to examine what might be gained by using a voting rule that requires candidate rankings. Previous analyses have considered (1) voting situations for which the three rules determine different candidates as winners (and the Condorcet Efficiencies might actually differ across the three rules) as well as (2) refined measures of Group Mutual Coherence that assess the presence of underlying models of rational behavior that governs voter preferences. In this paper, we present the final step of this particular line of analysis by analyzing (1) and (2) simultaneously. We conclude that there is a considerable benefit on the basis of Condorcet Efficiency from asking voters to submit candidate rankings in three-candidate elections.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
go back to reference Arrow KJ (1963) Social choice and individual values, 2nd edn. Yale University Press, New Haven Arrow KJ (1963) Social choice and individual values, 2nd edn. Yale University Press, New Haven
go back to reference Cervone D, Gehrlein WV, Zwicker W (2005) Which scoring rule maximizes Condorcet efficiency under IAC? Theory Decis 58:145–185CrossRef Cervone D, Gehrlein WV, Zwicker W (2005) Which scoring rule maximizes Condorcet efficiency under IAC? Theory Decis 58:145–185CrossRef
go back to reference Condorcet MD (1994) An essay on the application of probability theory to plurality decision-making (1785). In: McLean I, Hewitt F (eds) Condorcet: foundations of social choice and political theory. Edward Elgar Press, Hants, pp 120–130 Condorcet MD (1994) An essay on the application of probability theory to plurality decision-making (1785). In: McLean I, Hewitt F (eds) Condorcet: foundations of social choice and political theory. Edward Elgar Press, Hants, pp 120–130
go back to reference Courtin S, Martin M, Moyouwou I (2015) The q-Condorcet efficiency of positional rules. Theory Decis 79:31–49CrossRef Courtin S, Martin M, Moyouwou I (2015) The q-Condorcet efficiency of positional rules. Theory Decis 79:31–49CrossRef
go back to reference Diss M, Louichi A, Merlin V, Smaoui H (2012) An example of probability computations under the IAC assumption: the stability of scoring rules. Math Soc Sci 64:57–66CrossRef Diss M, Louichi A, Merlin V, Smaoui H (2012) An example of probability computations under the IAC assumption: the stability of scoring rules. Math Soc Sci 64:57–66CrossRef
go back to reference Gehrlein WV (2006) Condorcet’s paradox. Springer, Berlin Gehrlein WV (2006) Condorcet’s paradox. Springer, Berlin
go back to reference Gehrlein WV (2011) Strong measures of group coherence and the probability that a pairwise majority winner exists. Qual Quant 45:365–374CrossRef Gehrlein WV (2011) Strong measures of group coherence and the probability that a pairwise majority winner exists. Qual Quant 45:365–374CrossRef
go back to reference Gehrlein WV, Plassmann F (2014) A comparison of theoretical and empirical evaluations of the Borda Compromise. Soc Choice Welf 43:747–772CrossRef Gehrlein WV, Plassmann F (2014) A comparison of theoretical and empirical evaluations of the Borda Compromise. Soc Choice Welf 43:747–772CrossRef
go back to reference Gehrlein WV, Lepelley D, Smaoui (2011) The condorcet efficiency of voting rules with mutually coherent voter preferences: a borda compromise. Annales d’Economie et de Statistiques 101/102:107–125 Gehrlein WV, Lepelley D, Smaoui (2011) The condorcet efficiency of voting rules with mutually coherent voter preferences: a borda compromise. Annales d’Economie et de Statistiques 101/102:107–125
go back to reference Lepelley D, Louichi A, Smaoui H (2008) On Ehrhart polynomials and probability calculations in voting theory. Soc Choice Welf 30:363–383CrossRef Lepelley D, Louichi A, Smaoui H (2008) On Ehrhart polynomials and probability calculations in voting theory. Soc Choice Welf 30:363–383CrossRef
go back to reference Tideman TN, Plassmann F (2012) Modeling the outcomes of vote-casting in actual elections. In: Felsenthal D, Machover M (eds) Electoral systems: paradoxes, assumptions, and procedures. Springer, Berlin, pp 217–251CrossRef Tideman TN, Plassmann F (2012) Modeling the outcomes of vote-casting in actual elections. In: Felsenthal D, Machover M (eds) Electoral systems: paradoxes, assumptions, and procedures. Springer, Berlin, pp 217–251CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Further Support for Ranking Candidates in Elections
Authors
William V. Gehrlein
Dominique Lepelley
Florenz Plassmann
Publication date
27-02-2016
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Group Decision and Negotiation / Issue 5/2016
Print ISSN: 0926-2644
Electronic ISSN: 1572-9907
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-016-9470-1

Other articles of this Issue 5/2016

Group Decision and Negotiation 5/2016 Go to the issue