IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/cejnor/v14y2006i4p377-386.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A distance-based comparison of basic voting rules

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Eckert
  • Christian Klamler
  • Johann Mitlöhner
  • Christian Schlötterer

Abstract

In this paper we provide a comparison of different voting rules in a distance-based framework with the help of computer simulations. Taking into account the informational requirements to operate such voting rules and the outcomes of two well-known reference rules, we identify the Copeland rule as a good compromise between these two reference rules. It will be shown that the outcome of the Copeland rule is “close” to the outcomes of the reference rules, but it requires less informational input and has lower computational complexity. Copyright Springer-Verlag 2006

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Eckert & Christian Klamler & Johann Mitlöhner & Christian Schlötterer, 2006. "A distance-based comparison of basic voting rules," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 14(4), pages 377-386, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:cejnor:v:14:y:2006:i:4:p:377-386
    DOI: 10.1007/s10100-006-0011-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10100-006-0011-x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10100-006-0011-x?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. Vincent R. Merlin & Donald G. Saari, "undated". "The Copeland Method I; Relationships and the Dictionary," Discussion Papers 1111, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    2. Christian Klamler, 2005. "The Copeland rule and Condorcet’s principle," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 25(3), pages 745-749, April.
    3. Donald G. Saari & Vincent R. Merlin, 1996. "The Copeland method (*)," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 8(1), pages 51-76.
    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. I. Contreras, 2012. "Ordered Weighted Disagreement Functions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 345-361, May.
    2. Alexander V. Karpov, 2018. "An Informational Basis for Voting Rules," HSE Working papers WP BRP 188/EC/2018, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    3. Ignacio Contreras, 2010. "A Distance-Based Consensus Model with Flexible Choice of Rank-Position Weights," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 19(5), pages 441-456, September.
    4. Janusz Łyko & Radosław Rudek, 2017. "Operations research methods in political decisions: a case study on the European Parliament composition," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 572-586, December.
    5. Jorge Alcalde-Unzu & Marc Vorsatz, 2013. "Measuring the cohesiveness of preferences: an axiomatic analysis," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 41(4), pages 965-988, October.

    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. J.C.R. Alcantud & R. de Andrés Calle & J.M. Cascón, 2013. "Consensus and the Act of Voting," Studies in Microeconomics, , vol. 1(1), pages 1-22, June.
    2. Le Breton, Michel & Truchon, Michel, 1997. "A Borda measure for social choice functions," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 249-272, October.
    3. Channing Arndt & Azhar M. Hussain & Vincenzo Salvucci & Finn Tarp & Lars Peter Østerdal, 2016. "Poverty Mapping Based on First‐Order Dominance with an Example from Mozambique," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(1), pages 3-21, January.
    4. Channing Arndt & Azhar M. Hussain & Vincenzo Salvucci & Finn Tarp & Lars Peter Østerdal, 2016. "Poverty Mapping Based on First‐Order Dominance with an Example from Mozambique," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(1), pages 3-21, January.
    5. Josep Colomer, 2013. "Ramon Llull: from ‘Ars electionis’ to social choice theory," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(2), pages 317-328, February.
    6. 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.
    7. Michael Ackerman & Sul-Young Choi & Peter Coughlin & Eric Gottlieb & Japheth Wood, 2013. "Elections with partially ordered preferences," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 157(1), pages 145-168, October.
    8. Kamwa, Eric & Merlin, Vincent, 2015. "Scoring rules over subsets of alternatives: Consistency and paradoxes," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 130-138.
    9. José Carlos R., Alcantud & Rocío, de Andrés & José Manuel, Cascón, 2011. "Measurement of consensus with a reference," MPRA Paper 32155, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Truchon, Michel, 2004. "Aggregation of Rankings in Figure Skating," Cahiers de recherche 0402, Université Laval - Département d'économique.
    11. Michel Balinski & Rida Laraki, 2014. "Judge: Don't Vote !," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 62(3), pages 483-511, June.
    12. 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.
    13. Oleksandr Didkovskyi & Giovanni Azzone & Alessandra Menafoglio & Piercesare Secchi, 2021. "Social and material vulnerability in the face of seismic hazard: An analysis of the Italian case," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(4), pages 1549-1577, October.
    14. Bossert, Walter, 1998. "Welfarism and rationalizability in allocation problems with indivisibilities1," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 133-150, March.
    15. Flavio Trojan & Danielle Morais, 2015. "Maintenance Management Decision Model for Reduction of Losses in Water Distribution Networks," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 29(10), pages 3459-3479, August.
    16. Benczur, Peter & Joossens, Elisabeth & Manca, Anna Rita & Menyhert, Balint & Zec, Slavica, 2020. "How resilient are the European regions? Evidence from the societal response to the 2008 financial crisis," JRC Research Reports JRC121554, Joint Research Centre.
    17. Giora Slutzki & Oscar Volij, 2006. "Scoring of web pages and tournaments—axiomatizations," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 26(1), pages 75-92, January.
    18. Laslier, Jean-Francois, 1996. "Rank-based choice correspondences," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 279-286, September.
    19. Jiang, Shuai & Guo, Yanhong & Zhou, Wenjun & Li, Xianneng, 2023. "Identifying predictors of analyst rating quality: An ensemble feature selection approach," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 1853-1873.
    20. Edith Elkind & Piotr Faliszewski & Arkadii Slinko, 2012. "Rationalizations of Condorcet-consistent rules via distances of hamming type," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 39(4), pages 891-905, October.

    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:spr:cejnor:v:14:y:2006:i:4:p:377-386. 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.