IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/sochwe/v18y2001i1p79-89.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparison of Dodgson's method and Kemeny's rule

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas C. Ratliff

    (Department of Mathematics, Wheaton College, Norton, MA 02766-0930, USA)

Abstract

In an election without a Condorcet winner, Dodgson's method is designed to find the candidate that is "closest" to being a Condorcet winner. Similarly, if the head-to-head elections among all candidates do not give a complete transitive ranking, then Kemeny's Rule finds the "closest" transitive ranking. This paper uses geometric techniques to compare Dodgson's and Kemeny's notions of closeness and explain how conflict can arise between the two methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas C. Ratliff, 2001. "A comparison of Dodgson's method and Kemeny's rule," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 18(1), pages 79-89.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:sochwe:v:18:y:2001:i:1:p:79-89
    Note: Received: 19 October 1999/Accepted: 6 December 1999
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.de/link/service/journals/00355/papers/1018001/10180079.pdf
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Klamler, Christian, 2004. "The Dodgson ranking and the Borda count: a binary comparison," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 103-108, July.
    2. Irène Charon & Olivier Hudry, 2010. "An updated survey on the linear ordering problem for weighted or unweighted tournaments," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 107-158, March.
    3. Darmann, Andreas & Grundner, Julia & Klamler, Christian, 2019. "Evaluative voting or classical voting rules: Does it make a difference? Empirical evidence for consensus among voting rules," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 345-353.
    4. Andreas Darmann & Julia Grundner & Christian Klamler, 2017. "Consensus in the 2015 Provincial Parliament Election in Styria, Austria: Voting Rules,Outcomes, and the Condorcet Paradox," Graz Economics Papers 2017-13, University of Graz, Department of Economics.
    5. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2020. "On Some k -scoring Rules for Committee Elections: Agreement and Condorcet Principle," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 130(5), pages 699-725.
    6. Christian Klamler, 2003. "Kemeny's rule and Slater''s rule: A binary comparison," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(35), pages 1-7.
    7. Lamboray, Claude, 2007. "A comparison between the prudent order and the ranking obtained with Borda's, Copeland's, Slater's and Kemeny's rules," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 1-16, July.
    8. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2019. "On some k-scoring rules for committee elections: agreement and Condorcet Principle," Working Papers hal-02147735, HAL.
    9. Lederer, Patrick, 2024. "Bivariate scoring rules: Unifying the characterizations of positional scoring rules and Kemeny's rule," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    10. Christian Klamler, 2003. "A comparison of the Dodgson method and the Copeland rule," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(8), pages 1-7.

    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:spr:sochwe:v:18:y:2001:i:1:p:79-89. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.