More Borda Count Variations for Project Assesment

We introduce and analyze the following variants of the Borda rule: median Borda rule,geometric Borda rule, Litvak’s method as well as methods based on forming linear combinations of entries in the preference outranking matrix. The properties we focus upon are the elimination of the Condorcet loser as well as several consistency-type criteria.Borda rule, median rule, Nash welfare function, outranking matrix, maximin rule, consistency

Condorcet Domains, Median Graphs and the Single Crossing Property

Condorcet domains are sets of linear orders with the property that, whenever the preferences of all voters belong to this set, the majority relation has no cycles. We observe that, without loss of generality, such domain can be assumed to be closed in the sense that it contains the majority relation of every profile with an odd number of individuals whose preferences belong to this domain. We show that every closed Condorcet domain is naturally endowed with the structure of a median graph and that, conversely, every median graph is associated with a closed Condorcet domain (which may not be a unique one). The subclass of those Condorcet domains that correspond to linear graphs (chains) are exactly the preference domains with the classical single crossing property. As a corollary, we obtain that the domains with the so-called `representative voter property' (with the exception of a 4-cycle) are the single crossing domains. Maximality of a Condorcet domain imposes additional restrictions on the underlying median graph. We prove that among all trees only the chains can induce maximal Condorcet domains, and we characterize the single crossing domains that in fact do correspond to maximal Condorcet domains. Finally, using Nehring's and Puppe's (2007) characterization of monotone Arrowian aggregation, our analysis yields a rich class of strategy-proof social choice functions on any closed Condorcet domain

Condorcet Methods - When, Why and How?

Geometric representations of 3-candidate profiles are used to investigate properties of preferential election methods. The representation visualizes both the possibility to win by agenda manipulation, i.e. introducing a third and chanceless candidate in a 2-candidate race, and the possibility to win a 3-candidate election through different kinds of strategic voting. Here the focus is on the "burying" strategy in single-winner elections, where the win is obtained by ranking a main competitor artificially low. Condorcet methods are compared with the major alternatives (Borda Count, Approval Voting, Instant Runoff Voting). Various Condorcet methods are studied, and one method is proposed that minimizes the number of noncyclic profiles where burying is possible.Preferential election methods; agenda manipulation; strategic voting

On the geometric mean method for incomplete pairwise comparisons

When creating the ranking based on the pairwise comparisons very often, we face difficulties in completing all the results of direct comparisons. In this case, the solution is to use the ranking method based on the incomplete PC matrix. The article presents the extension of the well known geometric mean method for incomplete PC matrices. The description of the methods is accompanied by theoretical considerations showing the existence of the solution and the optimality of the proposed approach.Comment: 15 page

Introduction to social choice and welfare

Social choice theory is concerned with the evaluation of alternative methods of collective decision-making, as well as with the logical foundations of welfare economics. In turn, welfare economics is concerned with the critical scrutiny of the performance of actual and/or imaginary economic systems, as well as with the critique, design and implementation of alternative economic policies. The Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, which is edited by Kenneth Arrow, Amartya Sen and Kotaro Suzumura, presents, in two volumes, essays on past and on-going work in social choice theory and welfare economics. This paper is written as an extensive introduction to the Handbook with the purpose of placing the broad issues examined in the two volumes in better perspective, discussing the historical background of social choice theory, the vistas opened by Arrow's Social Choice and Individual Values, the famous "socialist planning" controversy, and the theoretical and practical significance of social choice theory.social choice theory, welfare economics, socialist planning controversy, social welfare function, Arrovian impossibility theorems, voting schemes, implementation theory, equity and justice, welfare and rights, functioning and capability, procedural fairness

Maximum Likelihood Approach to Vote Aggregation with Variable Probabilities

Condorcet (1785) initiated the statistical approach to vote aggregation. Two centuries later, Young (1988) showed that a correct application of the maximum likelihood principle leads to the selection of rankings called Kemeny orders, which have the minimal total number of disagreements with those of the voters. The Condorcet-Kemeny-Yoiung approach is based on the assumption that the voters have the same probability of comparing correctly two alternatives and that this probability is the same for any pair of alternatives. We relax the second part of this assumption by letting the probability of comparing correctly two alternatives be increasing with the distance between two alternatives in the allegedly true ranking. This leads to a rule in which the majority in favor of one alternative against another one is given a larger weight the larger the distance between the two alternatives in the true ranking, i.e. the larger the probability that the voters compare them correctly. This rule is not Condorcet consistent. Thus, it may be different from the Kemeny rule. Yet, it is anonymous, neutral, and paretian. However, contrary to the Kemeny rule, it does not satisfy Young and Levenglick (1978)'s local independence of irrelevant alternatives. Condorcet also hinted that the Condorcet winner or the top alternative in the Condorcet ranking is not necessarily most likely to be the best. Young confirms that indeed with a constant probability close to 1/2, this alternative is the Borda winner while it is the alternative whose smallest majority is the largest when the probability is close to 1. We extend his analysis to the case of variable probabilities. Young's result implies that the Kemeny rule does not necessarily select the alternative most likely to be the best. A natural question that comes to mind is whether the rule obtained with variable probabilities does better than the Kemeny rule in this respect. It appears that this performance imporves with the rate at which the probability increases.Vote Aggregation, Kemeny Rule, Maximum Likelihood, Variable Probabilities