Egalitarianism in the rank aggregation problem: a new dimension for democracy

Egalitarianism in the rank aggregation problem: a new dimension for democracy Winner selection by majority, in elections between two candidates, is the only rule compatible with democratic principles. Instead, when candidates are three or more and voters rank candidates in order of preference, there are no univocal criteria for the selection of the winning (consensus) ranking and the outcome is known to depend sensibly on the adopted rule. Building upon eighteenth century Condorcet theory, whose idea was maximising total voter satisfaction, we propose here a new basic principle (dimension) to guide the selection: satisfaction should be distributed among voters as equally as possible. With this new criterion we identify an optimal set of rankings, ranging from the Condorcet solution to the the most egalitarian one with respect to the voters. Most importantly, we show that highly egalitarian rankings are much more robust, with respect to random fluctuations in the votes, than consensus rankings returned by classical voting rules (Copeland, Tideman, Schulze). The newly introduced dimension provides, when used together with that of Condorcet, a more informative classification of all the possible rankings. By increasing awareness in selecting a consensus ranking our method may lead to social choices which are more egalitarian compared to those achieved by presently available voting systems. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Quality & Quantity Springer Journals

Egalitarianism in the rank aggregation problem: a new dimension for democracy

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/egalitarianism-in-the-rank-aggregation-problem-a-new-dimension-for-w9nxJ0EvjS
Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 by Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
Subject
Social Sciences; Methodology of the Social Sciences; Social Sciences, general
ISSN
0033-5177
eISSN
1573-7845
D.O.I.
10.1007/s11135-015-0197-x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Winner selection by majority, in elections between two candidates, is the only rule compatible with democratic principles. Instead, when candidates are three or more and voters rank candidates in order of preference, there are no univocal criteria for the selection of the winning (consensus) ranking and the outcome is known to depend sensibly on the adopted rule. Building upon eighteenth century Condorcet theory, whose idea was maximising total voter satisfaction, we propose here a new basic principle (dimension) to guide the selection: satisfaction should be distributed among voters as equally as possible. With this new criterion we identify an optimal set of rankings, ranging from the Condorcet solution to the the most egalitarian one with respect to the voters. Most importantly, we show that highly egalitarian rankings are much more robust, with respect to random fluctuations in the votes, than consensus rankings returned by classical voting rules (Copeland, Tideman, Schulze). The newly introduced dimension provides, when used together with that of Condorcet, a more informative classification of all the possible rankings. By increasing awareness in selecting a consensus ranking our method may lead to social choices which are more egalitarian compared to those achieved by presently available voting systems.

Journal

Quality & QuantitySpringer Journals

Published: Apr 10, 2015

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off