IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orinte/v34y2004i3p226-234.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decision Rules for the Academy Awards Versus Those for Elections

Author

Listed:
  • William V. Gehrlein

    () (Department of Business Administration, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware 19716-2710)

  • Hemant V. Kher

    () (Department of Business Administration, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware 19716-2710)

Abstract

Many researchers have evaluated various decision rules to determine how well they perform in selecting winners in elections. They have established criteria to measure how well these rules perform in selecting winners with the greatest mass appeal in general elections. We evaluate such decision rules on their performance in determining winners of awards for outstanding accomplishment. We examined the procedures the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences uses to choose nominees and winners for Academy Awards. We chose this example for two reasons. First, the academy uses several decision rules to select nominees and to select the winners from the lists of final nominees. Second, Academy Awards have an enormous impact on earnings and careers. We found that decision rules that can have negative effects in elections based on mass appeal can have positive aspects in determining winners of awards for outstanding accomplishment.

Suggested Citation

  • William V. Gehrlein & Hemant V. Kher, 2004. "Decision Rules for the Academy Awards Versus Those for Elections," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 34(3), pages 226-234, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:orinte:v:34:y:2004:i:3:p:226-234
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/inte.1040.0072
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pierre Favardin & Dominique Lepelley & Jérôme Serais, 2002. "original papers : Borda rule, Copeland method and strategic manipulation," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 7(2), pages 213-228.
    2. Saari, Donald G., 1989. "A dictionary for voting paradoxes," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 443-475, August.
    3. Pierre Favardin & Dominique Lepelley & Jérôme Serais, 2002. "Borda rule, Copeland method and strategic manipulation," Post-Print halshs-00069522, HAL.
    4. Merlin, V. & Tataru, M. & Valognes, F., 2000. "On the probability that all decision rules select the same winner," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 183-207, March.
    5. Gibbard, Allan, 1973. "Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(4), pages 587-601, July.
    6. Coggins, Jay S & Perali, C Federico, 1998. "Sixty-Four Percent Majority Rule in Ducal Venice: Voting for the Doge," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 97(4), pages 709-723, December.
    7. Gehrlein, William V. & Lepelley, Dominique, 2000. "The probability that all weighted scoring rules elect the same winner," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 191-197, February.
    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. Iain Pardoe & Dean K. Simonton, 2008. "Applying discrete choice models to predict Academy Award winners," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 171(2), pages 375-394.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    games; group decisions; voting; committees;

    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:inm:orinte:v:34:y:2004:i:3:p:226-234. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mirko Janc) The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Mirko Janc to update the entry or send us the correct email address. General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.