IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v199y2024i1d10.1007_s11127-022-01037-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Borda count in a forward agenda

Author

Listed:
  • Keith L. Dougherty

    (University of Georgia)

  • Robi Ragan

    (Mercer University)

Abstract

We prove that the core for Borda count is empty in many cases in which the majority core is non-empty. We then compare Borda count and majority rule in a forward agenda using a two-dimensional spatial voting model with minimal-intelligence agents who vote sincerely and propose randomly. The analysis allows us to compare Borda count and majority rule in a dynamic setting and to show which voting rule is more capable of attaining Pareto-optimal policies and utilitarian ideals under those conditions. We find that Borda count moves policies in the rough vicinity of the Copeland winner and typically outperforms majority rule on both criteria in twenty rounds or less. Majority rule often outperforms Borda count in 1000 rounds. This provides a modest step in the application of new voting rules to committees.

Suggested Citation

  • Keith L. Dougherty & Robi Ragan, 2024. "Borda count in a forward agenda," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 199(1), pages 27-44, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:199:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s11127-022-01037-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11127-022-01037-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11127-022-01037-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11127-022-01037-6?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Keith L. Dougherty & Julian Edward, 2011. "The Calculus of Consent and Constitutional Design," Studies in Public Choice, Springer, number 978-0-387-98171-0, December.
    2. Dougherty, Keith L. & Kisaalita, Alice & McKissick, Jordan & Katz, Evan, 2020. "Stopping rules for majority voting: A public choice experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 353-364.
    3. Van Newenhizen, Jill, 1992. "The Borda Method Is Most Likely to Respect the Condorcet Principle," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 2(1), pages 69-83, January.
    4. Godfrey, Joseph & Grofman, Bernard & Feld, Scott L., 2011. "Applications of Shapley-Owen Values and the Spatial Copeland Winner," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(3), pages 306-324, July.
    5. Gode, Dhananjay K & Sunder, Shyam, 1993. "Allocative Efficiency of Markets with Zero-Intelligence Traders: Market as a Partial Substitute for Individual Rationality," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(1), pages 119-137, February.
    6. Dhananjay K. Gode & Shyam Sunder, 1997. "What Makes Markets Allocationally Efficient?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 603-630.
    7. Keith Dougherty & Brian Pitts & Justin Moeller & Robi Ragan, 2014. "An experimental study of the efficiency of unanimity rule and majority rule," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 359-382, March.
    8. Norman Schofield, 1978. "Instability of Simple Dynamic Games," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 45(3), pages 575-594.
    9. Onur Doğan & Ayça Giritligil, 2014. "Implementing the Borda outcome via truncated scoring rules: a computational study," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 159(1), pages 83-98, April.
    10. Keith Dougherty & Julian Edward, 2012. "Voting for Pareto optimality: a multidimensional analysis," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 151(3), pages 655-678, June.
    11. Mostapha Diss & Ahmed Doghmi, 2016. "Multi-winner scoring election methods: Condorcet consistency and paradoxes," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 97-116, October.
    12. Keith L. Dougherty & Julian Edward, 2005. "A Nonequilibrium Analysis of Unanimity Rule, Majority Rule, and Pareto," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 43(4), pages 855-864, October.
    13. Edward W. Packel, 1981. "A Stochastic Solution Concept for n -Person Games," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 6(3), pages 349-362, August.
    14. Scott Feld & Bernard Grofman & Nicholas Miller, 1988. "Centripetal forces in spatial voting: On the size of the Yolk," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 59(1), pages 37-50, October.
    15. Fiorina, Morris P. & Plott, Charles R., 1978. "Committee Decisions under Majority Rule: An Experimental Study," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 72(2), pages 575-598, June.
    16. Rae, Douglas W., 1969. "Decision-Rules and Individual Values in Constitutional Choice," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 63(1), pages 40-56, March.
    17. McKelvey, Richard D., 1976. "Intransitivities in multidimensional voting models and some implications for agenda control," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 472-482, June.
    18. T. Tideman & Florenz Plassmann, 2014. "Which voting rule is most likely to choose the “best” candidate?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 331-357, March.
    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. Paul Brewer & Jeremy Juybari & Raymond Moberly, 2024. "A comparison of zero- and minimal-intelligence agendas in majority-rule voting models," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 19(3), pages 403-437, July.
    2. Keith Dougherty & Julian Edward, 2012. "Voting for Pareto optimality: a multidimensional analysis," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 151(3), pages 655-678, June.
    3. Keith Dougherty & Brian Pitts & Justin Moeller & Robi Ragan, 2014. "An experimental study of the efficiency of unanimity rule and majority rule," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 359-382, March.
    4. de Groot Ruiz, Adrian & Ramer, Roald & Schram, Arthur, 2016. "Formal versus informal legislative bargaining," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 1-17.
    5. A. J. McGann, 2004. "The Tyranny of the Supermajority," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 16(1), pages 53-77, January.
    6. Thomas Bräuninger, 2007. "Stability in Spatial Voting Games with Restricted Preference Maximizing," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 19(2), pages 173-191, April.
    7. Keith L. Dougherty & Robi Ragan, 2016. "An expected utility analysis of k-majority rules," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 332-353, September.
    8. Sauermann, Jan & Schwaninger, Manuel & Kittel, Bernhard, 2022. "Making and breaking coalitions: Strategic sophistication and prosociality in majority decisions," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    9. Tovey, Craig A., 2010. "The instability of instability of centered distributions," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 53-73, January.
    10. De Donder, Philippe & Gallego, Maria, 2017. "Electoral Competition and Party Positioning," TSE Working Papers 17-760, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    11. Kenneth Koford, 1982. "Why so much stability? An optimistic view of the possibility of rational legislative decisionmaking," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 3-19, March.
    12. Scott L. Feld & Bernard Grofman, 1991. "Incumbency Advantage, Voter Loyalty and the Benefit of the Doubt," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 3(2), pages 115-137, April.
    13. Brewer, Paul J & Moberly, Raymond, 2021. "A comparison of zero and minimal intelligence agendas in Markov Chain voting models," OSF Preprints ajfdb, Center for Open Science.
    14. Keith Dougherty, 2012. "Buchanan and Tullock’s apple," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 152(3), pages 403-406, September.
    15. Roger D. Congleton, 2018. "Intellectual foundations of public choice, the forest from the trees," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 175(3), pages 229-244, June.
    16. Norman Schofield, 2007. "Modelling Politics," ICER Working Papers 33-2007, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    17. Jan Sauermann, 2020. "On the instability of majority decision-making: testing the implications of the ‘chaos theorems’ in a laboratory experiment," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 88(4), pages 505-526, May.
    18. Dougherty, Keith L. & Kisaalita, Alice & McKissick, Jordan & Katz, Evan, 2020. "Stopping rules for majority voting: A public choice experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 353-364.
    19. Robi Ragan, 2015. "Computational social choice," Chapters, in: Jac C. Heckelman & Nicholas R. Miller (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Voting, chapter 5, pages 67-80, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. Lange, Andreas & Ross, Johannes, 2024. "Internalizing match-dependent externalities," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 218(C), pages 356-378.

    More about this item

    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:kap:pubcho:v:199:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s11127-022-01037-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.