Different approaches to weighted voting systems based on preferential positions

Robert Bystrický

Kybernetika (2012)

  • Volume: 48, Issue: 3, page 536-549
  • ISSN: 0023-5954

Abstract

top
Voting systems produce an aggregated result of the individual preferences of the voters. In many cases the aggregated collective preference – the result of the voting procedure – mirrors much more than anything else the characteristics of the voting systems. Preferential voting systems work most of the time with equidistant differences between the adjacent preferences of an individual voter. They produce, as voting systems usually do, some paradoxical results under special circumstances. However, the distances between the preferences can be understood as the function of the position in the sequence of preferences and can be aggregated in different ways fulfilling the basic attributes of the voting system. This approach at least allows us to avoid the worst paradoxical situations or to design a voting system containing some special needs.

How to cite

top

Bystrický, Robert. "Different approaches to weighted voting systems based on preferential positions." Kybernetika 48.3 (2012): 536-549. <http://eudml.org/doc/246134>.

@article{Bystrický2012,
abstract = {Voting systems produce an aggregated result of the individual preferences of the voters. In many cases the aggregated collective preference – the result of the voting procedure – mirrors much more than anything else the characteristics of the voting systems. Preferential voting systems work most of the time with equidistant differences between the adjacent preferences of an individual voter. They produce, as voting systems usually do, some paradoxical results under special circumstances. However, the distances between the preferences can be understood as the function of the position in the sequence of preferences and can be aggregated in different ways fulfilling the basic attributes of the voting system. This approach at least allows us to avoid the worst paradoxical situations or to design a voting system containing some special needs.},
author = {Bystrický, Robert},
journal = {Kybernetika},
keywords = {voting system; preference; position; voting system; preference; position},
language = {eng},
number = {3},
pages = {536-549},
publisher = {Institute of Information Theory and Automation AS CR},
title = {Different approaches to weighted voting systems based on preferential positions},
url = {http://eudml.org/doc/246134},
volume = {48},
year = {2012},
}

TY - JOUR
AU - Bystrický, Robert
TI - Different approaches to weighted voting systems based on preferential positions
JO - Kybernetika
PY - 2012
PB - Institute of Information Theory and Automation AS CR
VL - 48
IS - 3
SP - 536
EP - 549
AB - Voting systems produce an aggregated result of the individual preferences of the voters. In many cases the aggregated collective preference – the result of the voting procedure – mirrors much more than anything else the characteristics of the voting systems. Preferential voting systems work most of the time with equidistant differences between the adjacent preferences of an individual voter. They produce, as voting systems usually do, some paradoxical results under special circumstances. However, the distances between the preferences can be understood as the function of the position in the sequence of preferences and can be aggregated in different ways fulfilling the basic attributes of the voting system. This approach at least allows us to avoid the worst paradoxical situations or to design a voting system containing some special needs.
LA - eng
KW - voting system; preference; position; voting system; preference; position
UR - http://eudml.org/doc/246134
ER -

References

top
  1. Borda, J. C., Memoire sur les elections au scrutin, Histoire de l'Academie Royale des Sciences 1784. 
  2. Brams, S. J., Mathematics and Democracy: Designing Better Voting and Fair-Division Procedures, Princeton University Press 2008. Zbl1151.91001MR2382290
  3. Bystrický, R., Voting system with various distances between preferences, In: Proc. AGOP 2011, Benevento 2011. 
  4. Contreras, I., 10.1007/s10726-008-9127-9, Group Decision and Negotiation 19, (2010), 441–456. DOI10.1007/s10726-008-9127-9
  5. Cook, W. D., Seiford, L. M., 10.1287/mnsc.24.16.1721, Management Sci. 24, (1978), 16, 1721–1732. Zbl0486.90005DOI10.1287/mnsc.24.16.1721
  6. Cook, W. D., Seiford, L. M., 10.1287/mnsc.28.6.621, Management Sci. 28, (1982), 6, 621–637. Zbl0482.90002MR0668270DOI10.1287/mnsc.28.6.621
  7. Eckert, D., Klamler, C., Mitlöhner, J., Schlötterer, C., 10.1007/s10100-006-0011-x, Central Europ. J. Oper. Res. 14, (2006), 377–386. MR2279338DOI10.1007/s10100-006-0011-x
  8. Fishburn, P. C., 10.1137/0133030, SIAM J. Appl. Math. 33, (1977), 3, 469–489. Zbl0369.90002MR0449470DOI10.1137/0133030
  9. Kemeny, J., Mathematics without numbers, Daedalus 88, (1959), 571–591. 
  10. Kendall, M., Rank Correlation Methods, Hafner, New York 1962. Zbl0732.62057
  11. Nurmi, H., Voting Paradoxes and How to Deal With Them, Springer 1999. Zbl0943.91030MR1716482
  12. Saari, D., Basic Geometry of Voting, Springer 1995. Zbl0873.90006MR1410265
  13. Saari, D., Merlin, V., 10.1007/s003550050171, Soc. Choice Welfare 17 (2000), 403–438. Zbl1069.91538MR1762588DOI10.1007/s003550050171
  14. Vavríková, L., Transitive Preference Structures and Multicriteria Decision Making, Ph.D. Thesis. STU Bratislava 2011. 
  15. Young, H. P., 10.1137/0128067, SIAM J. Appl. Math. 28 (1975), 824–838. Zbl0277.92007MR0371438DOI10.1137/0128067

NotesEmbed ?

top

You must be logged in to post comments.