Theory and Decision

, Volume 57, Issue 1, pp 5–24 | Cite as

A Comparison of Some Distance-Based Choice Rules in Ranking Environments

  • Hannu Nurmi


We discuss the relationships between positional rules (such as plurality and approval voting as well as the Borda count), Dodgson’s, Kemeny’s and Litvak’s methods of reaching consensus. The discrepancies between methods are seen as results of different intuitive conceptions of consensus goal states and ways of measuring distances therefrom. Saari’s geometric methodology is resorted to in the analysis of the consensus reaching methods.


Borda count Dodgson’s method Geometry of voting Kemeny’s rule Litvak’s median Positional procedures Social choice 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baigent, N 1987aPreference proximity and anonymous social choiceThe Quarterly Journal of Economics102161169Google Scholar
  2. Baigent, N 1987bMetric rationalization of social choice functions according to principles of social choiceMathematical Social Sciences135965Google Scholar
  3. Bury, H, Wagner, D 2003Use of preference vectors in group judgement: The median of LitvakKacprzyk, JWagner, D eds. Group Decisions and VotingExitWarszawaGoogle Scholar
  4. Grazia, A. 1953Mathematical derivation of an election systemIsis444251Google Scholar
  5. Fishburn, P.C. 1977Condorcet social choice functionsSIAM Journal of Applied Mathematics33469489Google Scholar
  6. Fishburn, P.C. 1982Monotonicity paradoxes in the theory of votingDiscrete Applied Mathematics4119134Google Scholar
  7. Kemeny, J. 1959Mathematics without numbersDaedalus88571591Google Scholar
  8. Klamler, Ch. (2003a), The Dodgson ranking and its relation to Kemeny’s method and Slater’s rule, Social Choice and Welfare, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  9. Klamler, Ch. (2003b), On the closeness aspect of three voting rules: Borda-Copeland-maximin, Group Decision and Negotiation, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  10. Breton, M., Truchon, M 1997A Borda measure for social choice functionsMathematical Social Sciences34249272Google Scholar
  11. Litvak, B.G. (1982), Information Given by the Experts. Methods of Acquisition and Analysis (Radio and Communication, Moscow, Russian).Google Scholar
  12. Meskanen, T. (2004), private communication.Google Scholar
  13. Nanson, E.J. (1882), Methods of election, Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria XIX, 197–240.Google Scholar
  14. Nitzan, S 1981Some measures of closeness to unanimity and their implicationsTheory and Decision13129138Google Scholar
  15. Nurmi, H 1988Discrepancies in the outcomes resulting from different voting schemesTheory and Decision25193208Google Scholar
  16. Nurmi, H. and Suojanen M. (2003), Assessing contestability of electoral outcomes: An illustration of Saari’s geometry of elections in the light of the 2001 British parliamentary elections, Quality and Quantity, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  17. Ratliff, Th.C. 2001A comparison of Dodgson’s method and Kemeny’s ruleSocial Choice and Welfare187989Google Scholar
  18. Ratliff, Th.C. 2002A comparison of Dodgson’s method and the Borda countEconomic Theory20357372Google Scholar
  19. Saari, DG 1990The Borda dictionarySocial Choice and Welfare7279317Google Scholar
  20. Saari, DG 1995Basic Geometry of Voting BerlinSpringer-VerlagHeidelberg, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Saari, D.G. 1999Explaining all three-alternative voting outcomesJournal of Economic Theory87313355Google Scholar
  22. Saari, D.G. 2000Mathematical structure of voting paradoxes I: Pairwise voteEconomic Theory15153Google Scholar
  23. Saari, D.G. 2001aChaotic Elections. A Mathematician Looks at Voting ProvidenceAmerican Mathematical SocietyRIGoogle Scholar
  24. Saari, DG 2001bAnalyzing a nail-biting electionSocial Choice and Welfare18415430Google Scholar
  25. Saari, D.G. 2002Adopting a plurality perspectiveMathematics of Operations Research274564Google Scholar
  26. Saari, D.G., Barney, S 2003Consequences of reversing preferencesMathematical Intelligencer251731Google Scholar
  27. Saari, D.G., Merlin, V 2000A geometric examination of Kemeny’s ruleSocial Choice and Welfare17403438Google Scholar
  28. Tabarrok, A. 2001President Perot or fundamentals of voting theory illustrated with the 1992 electionPublic Choice106275297Google Scholar
  29. Young, H.P. 1974An axiomatization of Borda’s ruleJournal of Economic Theory94352Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hannu Nurmi
    • 1
  1. 1.Academy of Finland, Department of Political ScienceUniversity of TurkuTURKUFinland

Personalised recommendations