A minimax procedure for electing committees
- 181 Downloads
A new voting procedure for electing committees, called the minimax procedure, is described. Based on approval balloting, it chooses the committee that minimizes the maximum Hamming distance to voters’ ballots, where these ballots are weighted by their proximity to other voters’ ballots. This minimax outcome may be diametrically opposed to the outcome obtained by aggregating approval votes in the usual manner, which minimizes the sum of the Hamming distances and is called the minisum outcome. The manipulability of these procedures, and their applicability when election outcomes are restricted in various ways, are also investigated.
The minimax procedure is applied to the 2003 Game Theory Society election of a council of 12 new members from a list of 24 candidates. By rendering outlying voters less influential and not antagonizing any voters too much, it arguably would have produced a committee more representative of the interests of all voters than the minisum committee that was elected.
KeywordsMinimax procedure Minisum procedure Approval balloting Committee election Hamming distance
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Barberà, S., Bossert, W., & Pattanaik, P. K. (1998). Ranking sets of objects. In S. Barbera, P. J. Hammond, & Ch. Seidl (Eds.), Handbook of utility theory (Vol. 2). Boston: Kluwer. Google Scholar
- Brams, S. J., & Fishburn, P. C. (1983, 2007). Approval voting. Cambridge: Birkhäuser (1983); Heidelberg: Springer (2007). Google Scholar
- Brams, S. J., & Fishburn, P. C. (2002). Voting procedures. In K. Arrow, A. Sen, & K. Suzumura (Eds.), Handbook of social choice and welfare (pp. 175–236). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Google Scholar
- Brams, S. J., Kilgour, D. M., & Sanver, M. R. (2004, 2007). A minimax procedure for negotiating multilateral treaties. In M. Wiberg (Ed.), Reasoned choices: essays in honor of Hannu Nurmi. Turku: Finnish Political Science Association (2004); and R. Avenhaus & I. W. Zartman (Ed.), Diplomacy games: formal models of, in and for international negotiation. Heidelberg: Springer (2007). Google Scholar
- Diamond, L., & Plattner, M. F. (Eds.) (2006). Electoral Systems and democracy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Google Scholar
- Fishburn, P. C. (2004). Personal communication to Steven J. Brams (January 24). Google Scholar
- Hurwicz, L., & Sertel, M. R. (1999). Designing mechanisms, in particular for electoral systems: the majoritarian compromise. In M. R. Sertel (Ed.), Economic Design and Behaviour, London: Macmillan. Google Scholar
- Kilgour, D. M., Brams, S. J., & Sanver, M. R. (2006). How to elect a representative committee using approval balloting. In F. Pukelsheim & B. Simeone (Eds.), Mathematics and democracy: voting systems and collective choice (pp. 83–95). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
- Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
- Sertel, M., & Sanver, M. R. (1999). Designing public choice mechanisms. In I. Limam (Ed.), Institutional reform and development in the MENA region (pp. 129–148). Cairo: Arab Planning Institute. Google Scholar
- Weber, R. J. (1995). Approval voting. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(2), 39–49. Google Scholar