IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-04390700.html

On the price of diversity for multiwinner elections under (weakly) separable scoring rules

Author

Listed:
  • Mostapha Diss

    (CRESE - Centre de REcherches sur les Stratégies Economiques (UR 3190) - UFC - Université de Franche-Comté - UBFC - Université Bourgogne Franche-Comté [COMUE], AIRESS - Africa Institute for Research in Economics and Social Sciences)

  • Clinton Gubong Gassi

    (CRESE - Centre de REcherches sur les Stratégies Economiques (UR 3190) - UFC - Université de Franche-Comté - UBFC - Université Bourgogne Franche-Comté [COMUE])

  • Eric Kamwa

    (BETA - Bureau d'Économie Théorique et Appliquée - AgroParisTech - UNISTRA - Université de Strasbourg - Université de Haute-Alsace (UHA) - Université de Haute-Alsace (UHA) Mulhouse - Colmar - UL - Université de Lorraine - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)

Abstract

We consider a model of multi-winner elections, where each voter expresses a linear preference over a finite set of alternatives. Based on voters' preferences, the primary goal is to select a subset of admissible alternatives, forming what is referred to as a committee. We explore (weakly) separable committee scoring rules, the voting mechanisms that assess each alternative individually using a scoring vector and select the top k alternatives, where k represents the committee's size. Furthermore, we operate under the assumption that alternatives are categorized based on specific attributes. Within each attribute category, there exists a targeted minimum number of alternatives that the selected committee should encompass, emphasizing the necessity for diversity. In this context, we assess the cost associated with imposing such a diversity constraint on the voting process. This assessment is conducted through two methodologies, referred to as the "price of diversity" and the "individual price of diversity". We set the upper bounds for both prices across all (weakly) separable committee scoring rules. Additionally, we show how the maximum price of diver- sity can be used to discriminate between different voting rules in this context. Ultimately, we illustrate that concentrating on the candidates' performance yields a more accurate estimation of the price of diversity compared to a focus on the enforced diversity constraint.

Suggested Citation

  • Mostapha Diss & Clinton Gubong Gassi & Eric Kamwa, 2026. "On the price of diversity for multiwinner elections under (weakly) separable scoring rules," Post-Print hal-04390700, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-04390700
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2025.06.013
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://univ-fcomte.hal.science/hal-04390700v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://univ-fcomte.hal.science/hal-04390700v1/document
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2025.06.013?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Edith Elkind & Piotr Faliszewski & Arkadii Slinko, 2015. "Distance rationalization of voting rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(2), pages 345-377, September.
    3. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2020. "On Some k -scoring Rules for Committee Elections: Agreement and Condorcet Principle," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 130(5), pages 699-725.
    4. Şenay Yaşar Sağlam & W. Nick Street, 2018. "Distant diversity in dynamic class prediction," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 263(1), pages 5-19, April.
    5. Kang, Yanfei & Cao, Wei & Petropoulos, Fotios & Li, Feng, 2022. "Forecast with forecasts: Diversity matters," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 301(1), pages 180-190.
    6. 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.
    7. Lijo John & Anand Gurumurthy & Gunjan Soni & Vipul Jain, 2019. "Modelling the inter-relationship between factors affecting coordination in a humanitarian supply chain: a case of Chennai flood relief," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 283(1), pages 1227-1258, December.
    8. Béal, Sylvain & Deschamps, Marc & Diss, Mostapha & Tido Takeng, Rodrigue, 2025. "Cooperative games with diversity constraints," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    9. Sylvain Béal & Mostapha Diss & Rodrigue Tido Takeng, 2025. "New axiomatizations of the Diversity Owen and Shapley values," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 54(1), pages 1-16, June.
    10. Haris Aziz, 2019. "A Rule for Committee Selection with Soft Diversity Constraints," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(6), pages 1193-1200, December.
    11. Egor Ianovski, 2022. "Electing a committee with dominance constraints," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 318(2), pages 985-1000, November.
    12. Mostapha Diss & Ahmed Doghmi, 2016. "Multi-winner scoring election methods: Condorcet consistency and paradoxes," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 97-116, October.
    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. Andjiga, Nicolas G. & Mekuko, Aurelien Y. & Moyouwou, Issofa, 2014. "Metric rationalization of social welfare functions," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 14-23.
    15. Yuichiro Kamada & Fuhito Kojima, 2015. "Efficient Matching under Distributional Constraints: Theory and Applications," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(1), pages 67-99, January.
    16. Skowron, Piotr & Faliszewski, Piotr & Slinko, Arkadii, 2019. "Axiomatic characterization of committee scoring rules," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 244-273.
    17. Pankaj Dutta & Aayush Jain & Asish Gupta, 2020. "Performance analysis of non-banking finance companies using two-stage data envelopment analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 295(1), pages 91-116, December.
    18. Steven J. Brams, 1990. "Constrained Approval Voting: A Voting System to Elect a Governing Board," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 20(5), pages 67-80, October.
    19. Anatoly B. Schmidt, 2019. "Managing portfolio diversity within the mean variance theory," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 282(1), pages 315-329, November.
    20. Mostapha Diss & Vincent Merlin (ed.), 2021. "Evaluating Voting Systems with Probability Models," Studies in Choice and Welfare, Springer, number 978-3-030-48598-6, November.
    21. 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.
    22. D. Marc Kilgour, 2010. "Approval Balloting for Multi-winner Elections," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Jean-François Laslier & M. Remzi Sanver (ed.), Handbook on Approval Voting, chapter 0, pages 105-124, Springer.
    23. Martí, Rafael & Gallego, Micael & Duarte, Abraham, 2010. "A branch and bound algorithm for the maximum diversity problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(1), pages 36-44, January.
    24. 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.
    25. William V. Gehrlein & Dominique Lepelley, 2011. "Voting Paradoxes and Group Coherence," Studies in Choice and Welfare, Springer, number 978-3-642-03107-6, November.
    26. 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.
    27. Mancini, Simona & Ciavotta, Michele & Meloni, Carlo, 2021. "The Multiple Multidimensional Knapsack with Family-Split Penalties," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 289(3), pages 987-998.
    28. D. Marc Kilgour & Erica Marshall, 2012. "Approval Balloting for Fixed-Size Committees," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Dan S. Felsenthal & Moshé Machover (ed.), Electoral Systems, chapter 0, pages 305-326, Springer.
    29. Sylvain Béal & Marc Deschamps & Mostapha Diss & Rodrigue Tido Takeng, 2024. "Multiwinner elections with diversity constraints on individual preferences," Working Papers 2024-07, CRESE.
    30. Masahiro Goto & Fuhito Kojima & Ryoji Kurata & Akihisa Tamura & Makoto Yokoo, 2017. "Designing Matching Mechanisms under General Distributional Constraints," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 226-262, May.
    31. Clinton Gubong Gassi, 2024. "Weighted scoring rules for selecting a compatible committee," Working Papers 2024-04, CRESE.
    32. William V. Gehrlein & Dominique Lepelley, 2017. "Elections, Voting Rules and Paradoxical Outcomes," Studies in Choice and Welfare, Springer, number 978-3-319-64659-6, November.
    33. Herrero, Carmen & Villar, Antonio, 2021. "Group decisions from individual rankings: The Borda–Condorcet rule," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 291(2), pages 757-765.
    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. Mostapha Diss & Clinton Gubong Gassi & Issofa Moyouwou, 2025. "Combining Diversity and Excellence in Multiwinner Elections," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 34(4), pages 683-713, August.
    2. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2019. "On some k-scoring rules for committee elections: agreement and Condorcet Principle," Working Papers hal-02147735, HAL.
    3. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2020. "On Some k -scoring Rules for Committee Elections: Agreement and Condorcet Principle," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 130(5), pages 699-725.
    4. 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.
    5. Egor Ianovski, 2022. "Electing a committee with dominance constraints," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 318(2), pages 985-1000, November.
    6. Gassi, Clinton Gubong & Steffen, Frank, 2025. "Multi-winner rules analogous to the Plurality rule," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    7. Clinton Gubong Gassi, 2024. "Weighted scoring rules for selecting a compatible committee," Working Papers 2024-04, CRESE.
    8. Sergey Kovalev & Isabelle Chalamon & Fabio J. Petani, 2023. "Maximizing single attribute diversity in group selection," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 320(1), pages 535-540, January.
    9. 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.
    10. Clinton Gubong Gassi & Eric Kamwa, 2024. "q-fixed majority efficiency of committee scoring rules," Working Papers hal-04730580, HAL.
    11. Martin Lackner & Piotr Skowron, 2017. "Consistent Approval-Based Multi-Winner Rules," Papers 1704.02453, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2019.
    12. 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.
    13. Clinton Gubong Gassi & Frank Steffen, 2024. "Multi-winner rules analogous to the Plurality rule," Working Papers 2024-18, CRESE.
    14. Diss, Mostapha & Mahajne, Muhammad, 2020. "Social acceptability of Condorcet committees," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 14-27.
    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. Markus Brill & Jean-François Laslier & Piotr Skowron, 2018. "Multiwinner approval rules as apportionment methods," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 30(3), pages 358-382, July.
    17. Eric Kamwa, 2022. "Scoring Rules, Ballot Truncation, and the Truncation Paradox," Working Papers hal-03632662, HAL.
    18. Fatma Aslan & Hayrullah Dindar & Jean Lainé, 2023. "Correction to: When are committees of Condorcet winners Condorcet winning committees?," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 27(2), pages 469-469, June.
    19. Mostapha Diss & Clinton Gubong Gassi & Issofa Moyouwou, 2023. "Social acceptability and the majoritarian compromise rule," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 61(3), pages 489-510, October.
    20. Eric Kamwa, 2022. "The Condorcet Loser Criterion in Committee Selection," Working Papers hal-03880064, HAL.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • 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

    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-04390700. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.