IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2312.10405.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Fallacy of Borda Count Method -- Why it is Useless with Group Intelligence and Shouldn't be Used with Big Data including Banking Customer Services

Author

Listed:
  • Hao Wang

Abstract

Borda Count Method is an important theory in the field of voting theory. The basic idea and implementation methodology behind the approach is simple and straight forward. Borda Count Method has been used in sports award evaluations and many other scenarios, and therefore is an important aspect of our society. An often ignored ground truth is that online cultural rating platforms such as Douban.com and Goodreads.com often adopt integer rating values for large scale public audience, and therefore leading to Poisson/Pareto behavior. In this paper, we rely on the theory developed by Wang from 2021 to 2023 to demonstrate that online cultural rating platform rating data often evolve into Poisson/Pareto behavior, and individualistic voting preferences are predictable without any data input, so Borda Count Method (or, Range Voting Method) has intrinsic fallacy and should not be used as a voting theory method.

Suggested Citation

  • Hao Wang, 2023. "The Fallacy of Borda Count Method -- Why it is Useless with Group Intelligence and Shouldn't be Used with Big Data including Banking Customer Services," Papers 2312.10405, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2312.10405
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2312.10405
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2312.10405. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.