IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Borda rule as an almost first-order stochastic dominance rule


  • Mostapha Diss

    (CRESE, Univ. Bourgogne Franche-Comté)

  • Eric Kamwa

    (LC2S, Univ. des Antilles)

  • Muhammad Mahajne

    (GATE, Univ Lyon)


In single-winner elections and individuals expressing linear orderings, an alternative has first-order stochastic dominance if the cumulative standing for this alternative at each rank is higher than that of the other alternatives. It is well known that this criterion may fail in ranking the competing alternatives since the first-order stochastic dominance winner may not exist in some situations. Making an adaptation of a centrality measure from network theory, we introduce in this note a rule, called the almost first-order stochastic dominance rule, which selects the alternative having first-order stochastic dominance if such an alternative exists, otherwise it selects the alternative which is close to achieve first-order stochastic dominance. It turns out that this rule is equivalent to the well-studied Borda rule. This result highlights an unknown property of the Borda rule.

Suggested Citation

  • Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Muhammad Mahajne, 2020. "Borda rule as an almost first-order stochastic dominance rule," Working Papers 2020-05, CRESE.
  • Handle: RePEc:crb:wpaper:2020-05

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: First version, 2020
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Saari, Donald G., 1999. "Explaining All Three-Alternative Voting Outcomes," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 313-355, August.
    2. Moshe Leshno & Haim Levy, 2002. "Preferred by "All" and Preferred by "Most" Decision Makers: Almost Stochastic Dominance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(8), pages 1074-1085, August.
    3. Michel Truchon, 2005. "Aggregation of Rankings: a Brief Review of Distance-Based Rules," Cahiers de recherche 0534, CIRPEE.
    4. Stein, William E. & Mizzi, Philip J. & Pfaffenberger, Roger C., 1994. "A stochastic dominance analysis of ranked voting systems with scoring," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 78-85, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Raúl Pérez-Fernández & Bernard De Baets, 2017. "Recursive Monotonicity of the Scorix: Borda Meets Condorcet," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 793-813, July.
    2. D. Marc Kilgour & Jean-Charles Grégoire & Angèle M. Foley, 2022. "Weighted scoring elections: is Borda best?," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 58(2), pages 365-391, February.
    3. Caporin, Massimiliano & Costola, Michele & Jannin, Gregory & Maillet, Bertrand, 2018. "“On the (Ab)use of Omega?”," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 11-33.
    4. Pishchulov, Grigory & Trautrims, Alexander & Chesney, Thomas & Gold, Stefan & Schwab, Leila, 2019. "The Voting Analytic Hierarchy Process revisited: A revised method with application to sustainable supplier selection," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 166-179.
    5. Hooi Hooi Lean & Michael McAleer & Wing-Keung Wong, 2013. "Risk-averse and Risk-seeking Investor Preferences for Oil Spot and Futures," Documentos de Trabajo del ICAE 2013-31, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Instituto Complutense de Análisis Económico, revised Aug 2013.
    6. Noriaki Okamoto & Toyotaka Sakai, 2019. "The Borda rule and the pairwise-majority-loser revisited," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 23(1), pages 75-89, June.
    7. Regenwetter, Michel & Grofman, Bernard & Marley, A. A. J., 2002. "On the model dependence of majority preference relations reconstructed from ballot or survey data," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 451-466, July.
    8. Maciej Nowak, 2010. "Interactive Multicriteria Decision Aiding Under Risk—Methods and Applications," Journal of Business Economics and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 69-91, October.
    9. Lam, Kin & Lean, Hooi Hooi & Wong, Wing-Keung, 2016. "Stochastic Dominance and Investors’ Behavior towards Risk: The Hong Kong Stocks and Futures Markets," MPRA Paper 74386, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Larry Y. Tzeng & Rachel J. Huang & Pai-Ta Shih, 2013. "Revisiting Almost Second-Degree Stochastic Dominance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(5), pages 1250-1254, May.
    11. George J Borjas & Ilpo Kauppinen & Panu Poutvaara, 2019. "Self-selection of Emigrants: Theory and Evidence on Stochastic Dominance in Observable and Unobservable Characteristics," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 129(617), pages 143-171.
    12. Buhong Zheng, 2018. "Almost Lorenz dominance," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(1), pages 51-63, June.
    13. Paolo Viappiani, 2020. "Robust Winner Determination in Positional Scoring Rules with Uncertain Weights," Post-Print hal-02373399, HAL.
    14. Muhammad Mahajne & Shmuel Nitzan & Oscar Volij, 2015. "Level $$r$$ r consensus and stable social choice," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(4), pages 805-817, December.
    15. Lizyayev, Andrey & Ruszczyński, Andrzej, 2012. "Tractable Almost Stochastic Dominance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 218(2), pages 448-455.
    16. Stephen Gordon & Michel Truchon, 2008. "Social choice, optimal inference and figure skating," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 30(2), pages 265-284, February.
    17. Luo, Chunling & Tan, Chin Hon & Liu, Xiao, 2020. "Maximum excess dominance: Identifying impractical solutions in linear problems with interval coefficients," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 282(2), pages 660-676.
    18. Burzoni, Matteo & Munari, Cosimo & Wang, Ruodu, 2022. "Adjusted Expected Shortfall," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    19. Tommaso Lando & Lucio Bertoli-Barsotti, 2019. "Distorted stochastic dominance: a generalized family of stochastic orders," Papers 1909.04767,
    20. Donnelly, Catherine & Gerrard, Russell & Guillén, Montserrat & Nielsen, Jens Perch, 2015. "Less is more: Increasing retirement gains by using an upside terminal wealth constraint," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 259-267.

    More about this item


    Network; centrality; centrality measures; rankings; first-order stochastic dominance; scoring rules; Borda’s rule.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C71 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Cooperative Games
    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • D85 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Network Formation

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:crb:wpaper:2020-05. 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: . General contact details of provider: .

    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: Yves Oytana (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.