IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/injams/v5y2013i4p322-339.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Allowing abstentions in ranking methods with generalised ballots

Author

Listed:
  • James E. Falk
  • Lowell Bruce Anderson
  • Susan Palocsay

Abstract

There are many situations wherein a group of individuals (e.g., voters) must produce an ordered list of 'best' alternatives selected from a given group of alternatives (e.g., candidates). Standard approaches include ranked voting methods (RVMs) and methods of paired comparisons (MPCs). Typical 'ballots' for these approaches are distinctly different. Indeed, RVM ballots are simple rankings, with all unranked alternatives being considered inferior to all ranked alternatives. By comparison, MPC ballots are matrices whose off diagonal entries reflect the voter's opinion concerning only the row and column alternatives for that entry. Such methods generally do not require a voter to express an opinion concerning every pair of alternatives. In this paper we propose a straightforward methodology to allow voters to submit generalised ballots that can reflect the voter's opinions as precisely as those of MPC ballots, yet with the simplicity of traditional RVM ballots.

Suggested Citation

  • James E. Falk & Lowell Bruce Anderson & Susan Palocsay, 2013. "Allowing abstentions in ranking methods with generalised ballots," International Journal of Applied Management Science, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 5(4), pages 322-339.
  • Handle: RePEc:ids:injams:v:5:y:2013:i:4:p:322-339
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=57111
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    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:ids:injams:v:5:y:2013:i:4:p:322-339. 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: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=286 .

    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.