IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/amerec/v57y2012i1p32-41.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social Choice Theory in 10,000 Meters: Examining Independence and Transitivity in the Ncaa Cross-Country Championships

Author

Listed:
  • Franklin G. Mixon Jr.
  • Ernest W. King

Abstract

A recent study by Hammond (2007) delves into scoring methods in athletic events as a way of illuminating social choice problems. Hammond's study indicates, using data from a girls' high school cross-country meet in Michigan, that the current scoring method for high school cross-country is plagued by two problems related to inconsistency and ambiguity in the results – problems that can be characterized as violations of the principles of independence from irrelevant teams (IIT) and transitivity. Our note supports and extends Hammond's study by examining the results from both the 2008 and 2009 NCAA Division I men's cross-country championships, wherein the types of scoring problems found by Hammond are present. Unlike high school-level cross-country, however, we show that salaries, bonuses, and budgets at the collegiate level can be substantial, so that any inconsistencies and ambiguities in the scoring mechanism can be quite costly for individuals and institutions.

Suggested Citation

  • Franklin G. Mixon Jr. & Ernest W. King, 2012. "Social Choice Theory in 10,000 Meters: Examining Independence and Transitivity in the Ncaa Cross-Country Championships," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 57(1), pages 32-41, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:amerec:v:57:y:2012:i:1:p:32-41
    DOI: 10.1177/056943451205700103
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/056943451205700103
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/056943451205700103?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Saari,Donald G., 2001. "Decisions and Elections," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521808163.
    2. Thomas Hammond, 2007. "Rank injustice?: How the scoring method for cross-country running competitions violates major social choice principles," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 133(3), pages 359-375, December.
    3. Saari,Donald G., 2001. "Decisions and Elections," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521004046.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Diana Cheng & Peter Coughlin, 2017. "Using equations from power indices to analyze figure skating teams," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 170(3), pages 231-251, March.
    2. Boudreau, James W. & Sanders, Shane, 2015. "Choosing “Flawed” aggregation rules: The benefit of social choice violations in a league that values competitive balance," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 106-108.
    3. Boudreau, James & Ehrlich, Justin & Sanders, Shane & Winn, Adam, 2014. "Social choice violations in rank sum scoring: A formalization of conditions and corrective probability computations," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 20-29.
    4. Shane Sanders & Justin Ehrlich & James Boudreau, 2024. "Rule selection invariance as a robustness check in collective choice and nonparametric statistical settings," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 199(1), pages 7-26, April.
    5. Kurt S. Riedel, 2019. "Combinatorial Models of Cross-Country Dual Meets: What is a Big Victory?," Papers 1911.05044, arXiv.org.
    6. James Boudreau & Justin Ehrlich & Mian Farrukh Raza & Shane Sanders, 2018. "The likelihood of social choice violations in rank sum scoring: algorithms and evidence from NCAA cross country running," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 174(3), pages 219-238, March.

    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. Diana Cheng & Peter Coughlin, 2017. "Using equations from power indices to analyze figure skating teams," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 170(3), pages 231-251, March.
    2. Shane Sanders & Justin Ehrlich & James Boudreau, 2017. "Cycles in Team Tennis and Other Paired-Element Contests," Games, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-14, June.
    3. James Boudreau & Justin Ehrlich & Mian Farrukh Raza & Shane Sanders, 2018. "The likelihood of social choice violations in rank sum scoring: algorithms and evidence from NCAA cross country running," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 174(3), pages 219-238, March.
    4. Boudreau, James & Ehrlich, Justin & Sanders, Shane & Winn, Adam, 2014. "Social choice violations in rank sum scoring: A formalization of conditions and corrective probability computations," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 20-29.
    5. Domingo Docampo & Lawrence Cram, 2014. "On the internal dynamics of the Shanghai ranking," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 1347-1366, February.
    6. Aki Lehtinen, 2007. "The Borda rule is also intended for dishonest men," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 133(1), pages 73-90, October.
    7. Conal Duddy & Ashley Piggins & William Zwicker, 2016. "Aggregation of binary evaluations: a Borda-like approach," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(2), pages 301-333, February.
    8. Shmuel Nitzan, 2010. "Demystifying the ‘metric approach to social compromise with the unanimity criterion’," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 35(1), pages 25-28, June.
    9. Shin Sato, 2012. "On strategy-proof social choice under categorization," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 38(3), pages 455-471, March.
    10. Colignatus, Thomas, 2013. "The performance of four possible rules for selecting the Prime Minister after the Dutch Parliamentary elections of September 2012," MPRA Paper 44158, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 02 Feb 2013.
    11. Peter Emerson, 2013. "The original Borda count and partial voting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(2), pages 353-358, February.
    12. Hartvigsen, David, 2006. "Vote trading in public elections," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 31-48, July.
    13. Antoinette Baujard, 2006. "L'estimation des préférences individuelles en vue de la décision publique.. Problèmes, paradoxes, enjeux," Economie & Prévision, La Documentation Française, vol. 0(4), pages 51-63.
    14. Herrade Igersheim, 2006. "Invoking a Cartesian Product Structure on Social States: New Resolutions of Sen's and Gibbard's Impossibility Theorems," UFAE and IAE Working Papers 659.06, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Anàlisi Econòmica (UAB) and Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica (CSIC).
    15. Steven Brams & Michael Hansen & Michael Orrison, 2006. "Dead Heat: The 2006 Public Choice Society Election," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 128(3), pages 361-366, September.
    16. Antoinette Baujard, 2006. "Une critique opérationnelle du welfarisme dans la prise de décision publique," Post-Print halshs-00155130, HAL.
    17. Eric Libby & Leon Glass, 2010. "The Calculus of Committee Composition," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(9), pages 1-8, September.
    18. Michael Ackerman & Sul-Young Choi & Peter Coughlin & Eric Gottlieb & Japheth Wood, 2013. "Elections with partially ordered preferences," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 157(1), pages 145-168, October.
    19. Donald G. Saari, 2019. "Arrow, and unexpected consequences of his theorem," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 179(1), pages 133-144, April.
    20. Andrew Neath & Joseph Cavanaugh & Adam Weyhaupt, 2015. "Model evaluation, discrepancy function estimation, and social choice theory," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 231-249, March.

    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:sae:amerec:v:57:y:2012:i:1:p:32-41. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://journals.sagepub.com/home/aex .

    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.