IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Analysis of Voting procedures in One-Seat Elections: Condorcet Efficiency and Borda Efficiency

Listed author(s):
  • Dimitri Vandercruyssen
Registered author(s):

    In this paper 16 different voting procedures for one-seat elections are analysed: the rules of Borda, Condorcet, Black, Copeland, Simpson, Hare, Coombs, Baldwin, Nanson and the plurality, anti-plurality, majority, approval and runoff rules. The 2 criteria we use as a measure for the validity of the voting procedures are Condorcet efficiency (the number of times a voting procedure selects the Condorcet winner) and Borda efficiency (the number of times a voting procedure selects the Borda winner). Computer simulations calculate efficiencies for the 16 voting procedures. We find that the Borda rule is about 85% Condorcet efficient while some voting procedures are always 100 % Condorcet efficient (Black, Copeland, Simpson, Baldwin, Nanson). Another rule is only 100 % Condorcet efficient with single peaked profiles (Coombs). This can be proven theoretically. Another feature from single peaked profiles seems to be that some voting procedures select the same winner (Simpson, Baldwin, and Nanson). This result may be interesting for future research. Considering Borda efficiencies we see that the Black rule scores well, followed by the rules of Copeland, Nanson and Baldwin. Taking both Condorcet and Borda efficiencies into account, we can state that the Black rule is superior. Then come the rules of Copeland, Simpson, Nanson and Baldwin.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business, Department of Economics in its series Working Papers Department of Economics with number ces9911.

    in new window

    Date of creation: Mar 1999
    Handle: RePEc:ete:ceswps:ces9911
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ete:ceswps:ces9911. 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: (library EBIB)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.