Codifications of complete preorders that are compatible with Mahalanobis disconsensus measures
We introduce the use of the Mahalanobis distance for the analysis of the cohesiveness of a group of linear orders or complete preorders. We prove that arbitrary codifications of the preferences are incompatible with this formulation, while affine transformations permit to compare profiles on the basis of such a proposal. This measure seems especially fit for the cases where the alternatives are correlated, e.g., committee selection when the candidates are affiliated to political parties.
|Date of creation:||24 Sep 2013|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Ludwigstraße 33, D-80539 Munich, Germany|
Web page: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Duncan Black, 1976. "Partial justification of the Borda count," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 1-15, December.
- Wade D. Cook & Lawrence M. Seiford, 1982. "On the Borda-Kendall Consensus Method for Priority Ranking Problems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(6), pages 621-637, June.
- Jorge Alcalde-Unzu & Marc Vorsatz, 2013. "Measuring the cohesiveness of preferences: an axiomatic analysis," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 41(4), pages 965-988, October.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:50533. 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: (Joachim Winter)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.