IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-02147735.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

On some k-scoring rules for committee elections: agreement and Condorcet Principle

Author

Listed:
  • Mostapha Diss

    () (GATE Lyon Saint-Étienne - Groupe d'analyse et de théorie économique - ENS Lyon - École normale supérieure - Lyon - UL2 - Université Lumière - Lyon 2 - UCBL - Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 - Université de Lyon - UJM - Université Jean Monnet [Saint-Étienne] - Université de Lyon - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Eric Kamwa

    () (LC2S - Laboratoire caribéen de sciences sociales - UA - Université des Antilles - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Abdelmonaim Tlidi

    (ENSA Marrakech - École nationale des sciences appliquées de Marrakech)

Abstract

Given a collection of individual preferences on a set of candidates and a desired number of winners, a multi-winner voting rule outputs groups of winners, which we call committees. In this paper, we consider five multi-winner voting rules widely studied in the literature of social choice theory: the k-Plurality rule, the k-Borda rule, the k-Negative Plurality rule, the Bloc rule, and the Chamberlin-Courant rule. The objective of this paper is to provide a comparison of these multi-winner voting rules according to many principles by taking into account a probabilistic approach using the well-known Impartial Anonymous Culture (IAC) assumption. We first evaluate the probability that each pair of the considered voting rules selects the same unique committee in order to identify which multi-winner rules are the most likely to agree for a given number of candidates and a fixed target size of the committee. In this matter, our results show that the Chamberlin-Courant rule and the k-Plurality rule on one side, and the k-Borda rule and the Bloc rule on the other side, are the pairs of rules that most agree in comparison to other pairs. Furthermore, we evaluate the probability of every multi-winner voting rule selecting the Condorcet committee à la Gehrlein when it exists. The Condorcet committee à la Gehrlein is a fixed-size committee such that every member defeats every non-member in pairwise comparisons. In addition, we compare the considered multi-winner voting rules according to their ability (susceptibility) to select a committee containing the Condorcet winner (loser) when one exists. Here, our results tell us that in general, the k-Borda rule has the highest performance amongst all the considered voting rules. Finally, we highlight that this paper is one of the very rare contributions in the literature giving exact results under the Impartial Anonymous Culture (IAC) condition for the case of four candidates.

Suggested Citation

  • Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2020. "On some k-scoring rules for committee elections: agreement and Condorcet Principle," Post-Print hal-02147735, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-02147735
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.univ-antilles.fr/hal-02147735
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.univ-antilles.fr/hal-02147735/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. William Gehrlein & Dominique Lepelley, 2010. "On the probability of observing Borda’s paradox," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 35(1), pages 1-23, June.
    2. Piotr Faliszewski & Piotr Skowron & Arkadii Slinko & Nimrod Talmon, 2018. "Multiwinner analogues of the plurality rule: axiomatic and algorithmic perspectives," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(3), pages 513-550, October.
    3. Gehrlein, William V. & Fishburn, Peter C., 1978. "Probabilities of election outcomes for large electorates," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 38-49, October.
    4. Steven J. Brams & D. Marc Kilgour & Richard F. Potthoff, 2019. "Multiwinner approval voting: an apportionment approach," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 178(1), pages 67-93, January.
    5. Ariel Procaccia & Jeffrey Rosenschein & Aviv Zohar, 2008. "On the complexity of achieving proportional representation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 30(3), pages 353-362, April.
    6. Markus Brill & Jean-François Laslier & Piotr Skowron, 2018. "Multiwinner approval rules as apportionment methods," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) halshs-02087610, HAL.
    7. 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.
    8. Thomas C. Ratliff, 2001. "A comparison of Dodgson's method and Kemeny's rule," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 18(1), pages 79-89.
    9. Kamwa, Eric, 2017. "On stable rules for selecting committees," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 36-44.
    10. Richard F. Potthoff & Steven J. Brams, 1998. "Proportional Representation," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 10(2), pages 147-178, April.
    11. William Gehrlein & Dominique Lepelley & Issofa Moyouwou, 2015. "Voters’ preference diversity, concepts of agreement and Condorcet’s paradox," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 49(6), pages 2345-2368, November.
    12. Daniela Bubboloni & Mostapha Diss & Michele Gori, 2020. "Extensions of the Simpson voting rule to the committee selection setting," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 183(1), pages 151-185, April.
    13. Mostapha Diss & William Gehrlein, 2012. "Borda’s Paradox with weighted scoring rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 38(1), pages 121-136, January.
    14. Bock, Hans-Hermann & Day, William H. E. & McMorris, F. R., 1998. "Consensus rules for committee elections," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 219-232, May.
    15. Haris Aziz & Markus Brill & Vincent Conitzer & Edith Elkind & Rupert Freeman & Toby Walsh, 2017. "Justified representation in approval-based committee voting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(2), pages 461-485, February.
    16. Mostapha Diss & Ahmed Doghmi, 2016. "Multi-winner scoring election methods: Condorcet consistency and paradoxes," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 97-116, October.
    17. 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.
    18. Florenz Plassmann & T. Tideman, 2014. "How frequently do different voting rules encounter voting paradoxes in three-candidate elections?," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(1), pages 31-75, January.
    19. Steven Brams & D. Kilgour & M. Sanver, 2007. "A minimax procedure for electing committees," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 132(3), pages 401-420, September.
    20. Young, H. P., 1974. "An axiomatization of Borda's rule," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 43-52, September.
    21. Chamberlin, John R. & Courant, Paul N., 1983. "Representative Deliberations and Representative Decisions: Proportional Representation and the Borda Rule," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 77(3), pages 718-733, September.
    22. Debord, Bernard, 1993. "Prudent k-choice functions: properties and algorithms," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 63-77, July.
    23. Christian Klamler, 2004. "The Dodgson ranking and its relation to Kemeny’s method and Slater’s rule," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 23(1), pages 91-102, August.
    24. Davide Cervone & William Gehrlein & William Zwicker, 2005. "Which Scoring Rule Maximizes Condorcet Efficiency Under Iac?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 58(2), pages 145-185, March.
    25. Eric Kamwa & Vincent Merlin, 2015. "Scoring rules over subsets of alternatives: Consistency and paradoxes," Post-Print halshs-01238563, HAL.
    26. William V. Gehrlein & Dominique Lepelley, 2011. "Voting Paradoxes and Group Coherence," Studies in Choice and Welfare, Springer, number 978-3-642-03107-6, February.
    27. Thomas C. Ratliff, 2002. "A comparison of Dodgson's method and the Borda count," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 20(2), pages 357-372.
    28. Michel Regenwetter & Bernard Grofman, 1998. "Approval Voting, Borda Winners, and Condorcet Winners: Evidence from Seven Elections," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(4), pages 520-533, April.
    29. Salvador Barberà & Danilo Coelho, 2008. "How to choose a non-controversial list with k names," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(1), pages 79-96, June.
    30. Steven, Brams & Markus, Brill, 2018. "The Excess Method: A Multiwinner Approval Voting Procedure to Allocate Wasted Votes," MPRA Paper 89739, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    31. Winfried Bruns & Bogdan Ichim & Christof Söger, 2019. "Computations of volumes and Ehrhart series in four candidates elections," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 280(1), pages 241-265, September.
    32. Edith Elkind & Piotr Faliszewski & Piotr Skowron & Arkadii Slinko, 2017. "Properties of multiwinner voting rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(3), pages 599-632, March.
    33. 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.
    34. Gehrlein, William V., 1985. "The Condorcet criterion and committee selection," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 199-209, December.
    35. Thomas C. Ratliff, 2003. "Some startling inconsistencies when electing committees," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 21(3), pages 433-454, December.
    36. Christian Klamler, 2003. "A comparison of the Dodgson method and the Copeland rule," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(8), pages 1-7.
    37. Edith Elkind & Jérôme Lang & Abdallah Saffidine, 2015. "Condorcet winning sets," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 44(3), pages 493-517, March.
    38. Barış Kaymak & M. Remzi Sanver, 2003. "Sets of alternatives as Condorcet winners," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 20(3), pages 477-494, June.
    39. Peter Fishburn & William Gehrlein, 1976. "Borda's rule, positional voting, and Condorcet's simple majority principle," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 79-88, December.
    40. Gehrlein, William V. & Lepelley, Dominique, 1998. "The Condorcet efficiency of approval voting and the probability of electing the Condorcet loser," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 271-283, April.
    41. Gehrlein, William V. & Fishburn, Peter C., 1976. "The probability of the paradox of voting: A computable solution," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 14-25, August.
    42. William V. Gehrlein & Dominique Lepelley, 2017. "Elections, Voting Rules and Paradoxical Outcomes," Studies in Choice and Welfare, Springer, number 978-3-319-64659-6, February.
    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. Eric Kamwa, 2021. "To what extent does the model of processing sincereincomplete rankings affect the likelihood of thetruncation paradox?," Working Papers hal-02879390, HAL.
    2. Mostapha Diss & Michele Gori, 2020. "Majority properties of positional social preference correspondences," Working Papers 2020-06, CRESE.

    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. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2019. "On some k-scoring rules for committee elections: agreement and Condorcet Principle," Working Papers hal-02147735, HAL.
    2. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2018. "The Chamberlin-Courant Rule and the k-Scoring Rules: Agreement and Condorcet Committee Consistency," Working Papers halshs-01817943, HAL.
    3. Daniela Bubboloni & Mostapha Diss & Michele Gori, 2020. "Extensions of the Simpson voting rule to the committee selection setting," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 183(1), pages 151-185, April.
    4. Diss, Mostapha & Mahajne, Muhammad, 2020. "Social acceptability of Condorcet committees," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 14-27.
    5. Edith Elkind & Piotr Faliszewski & Piotr Skowron & Arkadii Slinko, 2017. "Properties of multiwinner voting rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(3), pages 599-632, March.
    6. Eric Kamwa, 2019. "On the Likelihood of the Borda Effect: The Overall Probabilities for General Weighted Scoring Rules and Scoring Runoff Rules," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 519-541, June.
    7. Mostapha Diss & Ahmed Doghmi, 2016. "Multi-winner scoring election methods: Condorcet consistency and paradoxes," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 97-116, October.
    8. Eric Kamwa, 2018. "On the Likelihood of the Borda Effect: The Overall Probabilities for General Weighted Scoring Rules and Scoring Runoff Rules," Working Papers hal-01786590, HAL.
    9. Eric Kamwa, 2019. "Condorcet efficiency of the preference approval voting and the probability of selecting the Condorcet loser," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 87(3), pages 299-320, October.
    10. Abdelhalim El Ouafdi & Dominique Lepelley & Hatem Smaoui, 2020. "Probabilities of electoral outcomes: from three-candidate to four-candidate elections," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 88(2), pages 205-229, March.
    11. Gehrlein, William V. & Lepelley, Dominique & Moyouwou, Issofa, 2016. "A note on Approval Voting and electing the Condorcet loser," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 115-122.
    12. Eric Kamwa & Issofa Moyouwou, 2019. "Susceptibility to Manipulation by Sincere Truncation : the Case of Scoring Rules and Scoring Runoff Systems," Working Papers hal-02185965, HAL.
    13. Eric Kamwa & Vincent Merlin, 2018. "Coincidence of Condorcet committees," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 50(1), pages 171-189, January.
    14. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa, 2020. "Simulations in Models of Preference Aggregation," Post-Print hal-02424936, HAL.
    15. Eric Kamwa, 2021. "To what extent does the model of processing sincereincomplete rankings affect the likelihood of thetruncation paradox?," Working Papers hal-02879390, HAL.
    16. Eric Kamwa & Vincent Merlin, 2019. "The Likelihood of the Consistency of Collective Rankings Under Preferences Aggregation with Four Alternatives Using Scoring Rules: A General Formula and the Optimal Decision Rule," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 53(4), pages 1377-1395, April.
    17. Eric Kamwa & Issofa Moyouwou, 2021. "Susceptibility to Manipulation by Sincere Truncation: The Case of Scoring Rules and Scoring Runoff Systems," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Mostapha Diss & Vincent Merlin (ed.), Evaluating Voting Systems with Probability Models, pages 275-295, Springer.
    18. Steven J. Brams & D. Marc Kilgour & Richard F. Potthoff, 2019. "Multiwinner approval voting: an apportionment approach," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 178(1), pages 67-93, January.
    19. Moyouwou, Issofa & Tchantcho, Hugue, 2017. "Asymptotic vulnerability of positional voting rules to coalitional manipulation," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 70-82.
    20. Eric Kamwa & Vincent Merlin, 2018. "The Likelihood of the Consistency of Collective Rankings under Preferences Aggregation with Four Alternatives using Scoring Rules: A General Formula and the Optimal Decision Rule," Working Papers hal-01757742, HAL.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Scoring rules; Chamberlin-Courant; Borda; Condorcet; Voting; Committee;
    All these keywords.

    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:hal:journl:hal-02147735. 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: (CCSD). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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 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.

    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.