IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/matsoc/v135y2025ics0165489625000356.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Condorcet efficiency: Weighted Bucklin vs. weighted scoring and Borda

Author

Listed:
  • Kilgour, D. Marc
  • Grégoire, Jean-Charles
  • Foley, Angèle M.

Abstract

We ask how good Bucklin-related procedures can be at identifying Condorcet winners in ranked-ballot, single-winner elections. Bucklin procedures can have a wide range of weighting vectors and thresholds; one, for example, applies Borda weights, analogous to the Borda Count in weighted scoring elections. Using simulation, we estimate the maximum Condorcet efficiency of both weighted Bucklin and weighted scoring elections as the number of voters becomes very large; these measures depend of course on the underlying distribution of ballots. For the impartial anonymous culture distribution, weighted Bucklin exhibits higher Condorcet efficiency than weighted scoring when there are 3 candidates, but is not as good when there are 4 candidates, and about equal when there are 5 or 6. We also compare them under the impartial culture distribution (equally good), and under a one-dimensional spatial model (weighted Bucklin is usually better, sometimes much better).

Suggested Citation

  • Kilgour, D. Marc & Grégoire, Jean-Charles & Foley, Angèle M., 2025. "Condorcet efficiency: Weighted Bucklin vs. weighted scoring and Borda," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:matsoc:v:135:y:2025:i:c:s0165489625000356
    DOI: 10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2025.102420
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165489625000356
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2025.102420?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:eee:matsoc:v:135:y:2025:i:c:s0165489625000356. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505565 .

    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.