IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/glodps/185.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Voting in Hiring Committees: Which "Almost" Rule Is Optimal?

Author

Listed:
  • Baharad, Eyal
  • Danziger, Leif

Abstract

We determine the scoring rule that is most likely to select a high-ability candidate. A major result is that neither the widely used plurality rule nor the inverse-plurality rule are ever optimal, and that the Borda rule is hardly ever optimal. Furthermore, we show that only the almost-plurality, the almost-inverse-plurality, and the almost-Borda rule can be optimal. Which of the "almost" rules is optimal depends on the likelihood that a candidate has high ability and how likely committee members are to correctly identify the abilities of the different candidates.

Suggested Citation

  • Baharad, Eyal & Danziger, Leif, 2018. "Voting in Hiring Committees: Which "Almost" Rule Is Optimal?," GLO Discussion Paper Series 185, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:glodps:185
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/175197/1/GLO-DP-0185.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eyal Baharad & Shmuel Nitzan, 2005. "The inverse plurality rule—an axiomatization," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 25(1), pages 173-178, October.
    2. Ahn, David S. & Oliveros, Santiago, 2016. "Approval voting and scoring rules with common values," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 304-310.
    3. Matías Núñez & Jean Laslier, 2014. "Preference intensity representation: strategic overstating in large elections," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(2), pages 313-340, February.
    4. Pavel Yu. Chebotarev & Elena Shamis, 1998. "Characterizations of scoring methodsfor preference aggregation," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 80(0), pages 299-332, January.
    5. Baharad, Eyal & Nitzan, Shmuel, 2002. "Ameliorating Majority Decisiveness through Expression of Preference Intensity," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 96(4), pages 745-754, December.
    6. Ching, Stephen, 1996. "A Simple Characterization of Plurality Rule," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 298-302, October.
    7. Saari, Donald G. & Valognes, Fabrice, 1999. "The geometry of Black's single peakedness and related conditions," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 429-456, December.
    8. Giles, Adam & Postl, Peter, 2014. "Equilibrium and effectiveness of two-parameter scoring rules," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 31-52.
    9. Mueller,Dennis C., 2003. "Public Choice III," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521894753.
    10. Myerson, Roger B., 2002. "Comparison of Scoring Rules in Poisson Voting Games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 103(1), pages 219-251, March.
    11. Saari, Donald G., 1999. "Explaining All Three-Alternative Voting Outcomes," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 313-355, August.
    12. Young, H. P., 1974. "An axiomatization of Borda's rule," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 43-52, September.
    13. Donald G. Saari & Maria M. Tataru, 1999. "The likelihood of dubious election outcomes," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 13(2), pages 345-363.
    14. Shmuel Nitzan & Ariel Rubinstein, 1981. "A further characterization of Borda ranking method," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 153-158, January.
    15. Eyal Baharad & Shmuel Nitzan, 2016. "Is majority consistency possible?," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(2), pages 287-299, February.
    16. Shmuel Nitzan, 1985. "The vulnerability of point-voting schemes to preference variation and strategic manipulation," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 349-370, January.
    17. Lerer, Ehud & Nitzan, Shmuel, 1985. "Some general results on the metric rationalization for social decision rules," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 191-201, October.
    18. José García-Lapresta & A. Marley & Miguel Martínez-Panero, 2010. "Characterizing best–worst voting systems in the scoring context," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 34(3), pages 487-496, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eyal Baharad & Leif Danziger, 2018. "Voting in Hiring Committees: Which "Almost" Rule is Optimal?," CESifo Working Paper Series 6851, CESifo.
    2. Baharad, Eyal & Danziger, Leif, 2018. "Voting in Hiring Committees: Which "Almost" Rule Is Optimal?," IZA Discussion Papers 11287, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Eyal Baharad & Leif Danziger, 2018. "Voting in Hiring Committees: Which “Almost” Rule is Optimal?," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 129-151, February.
    4. Eyal Baharad & Shmuel Nitzan, 2016. "Is majority consistency possible?," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(2), pages 287-299, February.
    5. Walter Bossert & Kotaro Suzumura, 2020. "Positionalist voting rules: a general definition and axiomatic characterizations," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 55(1), pages 85-116, June.
    6. Aleksei Y. Kondratev & Alexander S. Nesterov, 2020. "Measuring majority power and veto power of voting rules," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 183(1), pages 187-210, April.
    7. Pivato, Marcus, 2013. "Variable-population voting rules," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 210-221.
    8. László Csató, 2019. "An impossibility theorem for paired comparisons," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 27(2), pages 497-514, June.
    9. Marcus Pivato, 2016. "Asymptotic utilitarianism in scoring rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(2), pages 431-458, August.
    10. Pivato, Marcus, 2014. "Formal utilitarianism and range voting," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 50-56.
    11. Marcus Pivato, 2016. "Statistical Utilitarianism," Studies in Political Economy, in: Maria Gallego & Norman Schofield (ed.), The Political Economy of Social Choices, pages 187-204, Springer.
    12. Barberà, Salvador & Bossert, Walter, 2023. "Opinion aggregation: Borda and Condorcet revisited," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 210(C).
    13. Matías Núñez, 2014. "The strategic sincerity of Approval voting," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 56(1), pages 157-189, May.
    14. Muhammad Mahajne & Oscar Volij, 2018. "The socially acceptable scoring rule," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(2), pages 223-233, August.
    15. Kurihara, Takashi, 2018. "Axiomatic characterisations of the basic best–worst rule," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 19-22.
    16. Muhammad Mahajne & Oscar Volij, 2017. "The Socially Acceptable Scoring Rule," Working Papers 1705, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Department of Economics.
    17. Raúl Pérez-Fernández & Bernard De Baets, 2017. "Recursive Monotonicity of the Scorix: Borda Meets Condorcet," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 793-813, July.
    18. Postl, Peter, 2017. "Évaluation et comparaison des règles de vote derrière le voile de l’ignorance : Tour d'horizon sélectif et analyse des règles de scores à deux paramètres," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 93(1-2), pages 249-290, Mars-Juin.
    19. Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit, 2021. "Axioms for defeat in democratic elections," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 33(4), pages 475-524, October.
    20. László Csató, 2018. "Characterization of the Row Geometric Mean Ranking with a Group Consensus Axiom," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(6), pages 1011-1027, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Committee decisions; Scoring rules; Almost voting rules;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:glodps:185. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/glabode.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.