IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-01243405.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Refining measures of group mutual coherence

Author

Listed:
  • William V. Gehrlein

    (University of Delaware [Newark])

  • Dominique Lepelley

    (CEMOI - Centre d'Économie et de Management de l'Océan Indien - UR - Université de La Réunion)

Abstract

The Condorcet efficiencies of plurality rule (PR), negative plurality rule (NPR), Borda rule (BR), plurality elimination rule (PER) and negative plurality elimination rule (NPER) were evaluated over parameters associated with six models of group mutual coherence in Gehrlein and Lepelley (Voting paradoxes and group coherence: the Condorcet efficiency of voting rules, 2010) It was found that BR was not always the most efficient voting rule, but it always performed quite well; while each of the other voting rules had identifiable regions of parameters in which they performed very poorly. By refining these parameters so that attention is focused on the particular model of group coherence that most closely reflects the voters' preferences in a given voting situation, these conclusions are modified. The comparison of BR to PER and NPER changes significantly. The comparison of BR to PR and NPR remains similar, but the differences in the relative comparisons of efficiencies are somewhat reduced.

Suggested Citation

  • William V. Gehrlein & Dominique Lepelley, 2015. "Refining measures of group mutual coherence," Post-Print hal-01243405, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01243405
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-015-0241-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. William V. Gehrlein & Dominique Lepelley & Florenz Plassmann, 2016. "Further Support for Ranking Candidates in Elections," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(5), pages 941-966, September.
    2. Alexander Karpov, 2017. "Preference Diversity Orderings," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 753-774, July.
    3. José Carlos R. Alcantud & María José M. Torrecillas, 2017. "Consensus measures for various informational bases. Three new proposals and two case studies from political science," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(1), pages 285-306, January.

    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:hal:journl:hal-01243405. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.