IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ebl/ecbull/eb-02d70014.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparison of the Dodgson method and the Copeland rule

Author

Listed:
  • Christian Klamler

    (Institute of Public Economics, Graz University, Austria)

Abstract

This paper compares binary versions of two well-known preference aggregation methods designed to overcome problems occurring from voting cycles, Copeland's (1951) and Dodgson''s (1876) method. In particular it will first be shown that the Copeland winner can occur at any position in the Dodgson ranking. Second, it will be proved that for some list of individual preferences over the set of alternatives, the Dodgson ranking and the Copeland ranking will be exactly the opposite, i.e. maximally different.

Suggested Citation

  • Christian Klamler, 2003. "A comparison of the Dodgson method and the Copeland rule," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(8), pages 1-7.
    • Handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-02d70014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.accessecon.com/pubs/EB/2003/Volume4/EB-02D70014A.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas C. Ratliff, 2001. "A comparison of Dodgson's method and Kemeny's rule," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 18(1), pages 79-89.
    2. Christian Klamler, 2004. "The Dodgson ranking and its relation to Kemeny’s method and Slater’s rule," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 23(1), pages 91-102, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2020. "On Some k -scoring Rules for Committee Elections: Agreement and Condorcet Principle," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 130(5), pages 699-725.
    2. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2019. "On some k-scoring rules for committee elections: agreement and Condorcet Principle," Working Papers hal-02147735, HAL.
    3. Engin ÇAKIR, 2017. "Application of Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods on Six Sigma Projects Selection," Journal of Social and Administrative Sciences, KSP Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 132-138, March.
    4. Lamboray, Claude, 2007. "A comparison between the prudent order and the ranking obtained with Borda's, Copeland's, Slater's and Kemeny's rules," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 1-16, July.
    5. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:4:y:2003:i:35:p:1-7 is not listed 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. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2019. "On some k-scoring rules for committee elections: agreement and Condorcet Principle," Working Papers hal-02147735, HAL.
    2. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2020. "On Some k -scoring Rules for Committee Elections: Agreement and Condorcet Principle," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 130(5), pages 699-725.
    3. Christian Klamler, 2003. "Kemeny's rule and Slater''s rule: A binary comparison," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(35), pages 1-7.
    4. Irène Charon & Olivier Hudry, 2010. "An updated survey on the linear ordering problem for weighted or unweighted tournaments," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 107-158, March.
    5. Lamboray, Claude, 2007. "A comparison between the prudent order and the ranking obtained with Borda's, Copeland's, Slater's and Kemeny's rules," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 1-16, July.
    6. Klamler, Christian, 2004. "The Dodgson ranking and the Borda count: a binary comparison," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 103-108, July.
    7. Cascón, J.M. & González-Arteaga, T. & de Andrés Calle, R., 2019. "Reaching social consensus family budgets: The Spanish case," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 28-41.
    8. Hannu Nurmi, 2004. "A Comparison of Some Distance-Based Choice Rules in Ranking Environments," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 57(1), pages 5-24, August.
    9. Andreas Darmann & Julia Grundner & Christian Klamler, 2017. "Consensus in the 2015 Provincial Parliament Election in Styria, Austria: Voting Rules,Outcomes, and the Condorcet Paradox," Graz Economics Papers 2017-13, University of Graz, Department of Economics.
    10. Christian Klamler, 2005. "On the Closeness Aspect of Three Voting Rules: Borda – Copeland – Maximin," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 233-240, May.
    11. Ariel D Procaccia & Michal Feldmany & Jeffrey S Rosenschein, 2007. "Approximability and Inapproximability of Dodgson and Young Elections," Levine's Bibliography 122247000000001616, UCLA Department of Economics.
    12. Burak Can & Mohsen Pourpouneh & Ton Storcken, 2022. "An axiomatic re-characterization of the Kemeny rule," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(3), pages 447-467, September.
    13. Burak Can & Mohsen Pourpouneh & Ton Storcken, 2021. "An axiomatic characterization of the Slater rule," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(4), pages 835-853, May.
    14. Hannu Nurmi, 2014. "Are we done with preference rankings? If we are, then what?," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 24(4), pages 63-74.
    15. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:4:y:2003:i:8:p:1-7 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Darmann, Andreas & Grundner, Julia & Klamler, Christian, 2019. "Evaluative voting or classical voting rules: Does it make a difference? Empirical evidence for consensus among voting rules," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 345-353.
    17. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:4:y:2003:i:35:p:1-7 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Ariel D. Procaccia & Michal Feldmany & Jeffrey S. Rosenschein, 2007. "Approximability and Inapproximability of Dodgson and Young Elections," Discussion Paper Series dp466, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Copeland Rule;

    JEL classification:

    • D7 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making

    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:ebl:ecbull:eb-02d70014. 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: John P. Conley (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.