IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v40y1983i3p249-261.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scoring rule sensitivity to weight selection

Author

Listed:
  • William Gehrlein
  • Peter Fishburn

Abstract

This essay examines the sensitivity of collective rankings and winners to the weights used in score vectors that are applied to sets of individual rankings to yield collectieve rankings in a typical additive manner. The paper considers probabilities of getting the same winner and the same collective ranking when different score vectors are used for three-element sets. It then discusses the propensities of score vectors to preserve the orginal winner or collective ranking when one or more elements is removed from this ranking and a lower dimensional score vector is applied to the reduced situation. The latter case is examined for three- and four-element sets. The model used for the assessments is based on equally-likely choices of rankings by individuals and applies to situations that involve large numbers of individuals. Roughly speaking, best agreements and minimum sensitivities center around linear (Borda) score vectors. The greatest discrepancies arise from the so-called plurality and reverse plurality score vectors. Copyright Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1983

Suggested Citation

  • William Gehrlein & Peter Fishburn, 1983. "Scoring rule sensitivity to weight selection," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 249-261, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:40:y:1983:i:3:p:249-261
    DOI: 10.1007/BF00114522
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/BF00114522
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF00114522?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gehrlein, William V., 1981. "Single-stage election procedures for large electorates," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 263-275, October.
    2. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    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 & Vincent Merlin, 2010. "On the stability of a triplet of scoring rules," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(2), pages 289-316, August.
    2. Mostapha Diss & Patrizia Pérez-Asurmendi, 2016. "Consistent collective decisions under majorities based on difference of votes," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(3), pages 473-494, March.
    3. William Gehrlein, 1999. "On the Probability that all Weighted Scoring Rules Elect the Condorcet Winner," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 77-84, February.
    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. 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.
    6. Mostapha Diss & Patrizia Pérez-Asurmendi, 2016. "Probabilities of Consistent Election Outcomes with Majorities Based on Difference in Support," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(5), pages 967-994, September.
    7. Mostapha Diss & Patrizia Pérez-Asurmendi, 2015. "Consistent collective decisions under majorities based on difference of votes," Working Papers 1533, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.

    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. Maurizio Zanardi, 2004. "Antidumping law as a collusive device," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 37(1), pages 95-122, February.
    2. Magni, Carlo Alberto, 2009. "Splitting up value: A critical review of residual income theories," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 198(1), pages 1-22, October.
    3. Michael Carter & Julian Wright, 1999. "Interconnection in Network Industries," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 14(1), pages 1-25, February.
    4. Laruelle, Annick & Valenciano, Federico, 2008. "Noncooperative foundations of bargaining power in committees and the Shapley-Shubik index," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 341-353, May.
    5. Omer F. Baris, 2018. "Timing effect in bargaining and ex ante efficiency of the relative utilitarian solution," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(4), pages 547-556, June.
    6. Bergantiños, Gustavo & Moreno-Ternero, Juan D., 2022. "Monotonicity in sharing the revenues from broadcasting sports leagues," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(1), pages 338-346.
    7. Yan, Ruiliang & Wang, John & Zhou, Bin, 2010. "Channel integration and profit sharing in the dynamics of multi-channel firms," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 430-440.
    8. Marc Fleurbaey, 2000. "Choix social : une difficulté et de multiples possibilités," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 51(5), pages 1215-1232.
    9. Guth, Werner & Ritzberger, Klaus & van Damme, Eric, 2004. "On the Nash bargaining solution with noise," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 697-713, June.
    10. Ichiishi, Tatsuro, 1985. "Management versus ownership, II," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 115-138, March.
    11. Pinkley, Robin L. & Conlon, Donald E. & Sawyer, John E. & Sleesman, Dustin J. & Vandewalle, Don & Kuenzi, Maribeth, 2019. "The power of phantom alternatives in negotiation: How what could be haunts what is," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 34-48.
    12. Wen Li Cheng & Jeffrey Sachs & Xiaokai Yang, 2005. "An Inframarginal Analysis Of The Ricardian Model," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: An Inframarginal Approach To Trade Theory, chapter 6, pages 87-107, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    13. Lea Melnikovová, 2017. "Can Game Theory Help to Mitigate Water Conflicts in the Syrdarya Basin?," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 65(4), pages 1393-1401.
    14. Jingyi Xue, 2018. "Fair division with uncertain needs," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(1), pages 105-136, June.
    15. Marc Le Menestrel & Luk Van Wassenhove, 2001. "The Domain and Interpretation of Utility Functions: An Exploration," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 329-349, December.
    16. repec:tcd:wpaper:tep7 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Volodymyr Babich & Simone Marinesi & Gerry Tsoukalas, 2021. "Does Crowdfunding Benefit Entrepreneurs and Venture Capital Investors?," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 23(2), pages 508-524, March.
    18. Daniele Cassese & Paolo Pin, 2025. "Decentralized pure exchange processes on networks," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 64(3), pages 427-463, May.
    19. Ley, Eduardo, 2006. "Statistical inference as a bargaining game," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 93(1), pages 142-149, October.
    20. Padilla Tinoco, Silvia Valeria & Creemers, Stefan & Boute, Robert N., 2017. "Collaborative shipping under different cost-sharing agreements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 263(3), pages 827-837.
    21. Christopher Bruce & Jeremy Clark, 2010. "The Efficiency of Direct Public Involvement in Environmental Policymaking: An Experimental Test," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(2), pages 157-182, February.

    More about this item

    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:kap:pubcho:v:40:y:1983:i:3:p:249-261. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.