A novel approach for discriminating efficient candidates by classifying voters in the preferential voting framework

  • Ali EbrahimnejadEmail author
Original Paper Area 2


A key issue in the preferential voting framework is how voters express their preferences on a set of candidates. In the existing voting systems, each voter selects a subset of candidates and ranks them from most to least preferred. The obtained preference score of each candidate is the weighted sum of votes receives in different places. However, most of the existing voting systems assume vote of all voters have equal importance and there is no preference among them. In this paper, a new voting system is introduced to overcome this drawback. In the proposed voting system is assumed that voters are classified into several categories in which the vote of voters in a higher category is more important than the ones in a lower category. Then, an existing ranking method is generalized to rank multiple efficient candidates based on comparing the least preference scores for each efficient candidate with the best and the least preference scores measured in the same range. The proposed method is illustrated with two application examples which prove to be persuasive and acceptable to the election systems.


Data envelopment analysis Preference score Ranking Voting 

Mathematics Subject Classification

90Bxx 90B50 


  1. 1.
    Andersen, P., Petersen, N.C.: A procedure for ranking efficient units in data envelopment analysis. Manag. Sci. 39(10), 1261–1264 (1993)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chiang, C.L., Hwang, M.J., Liu, Y.H.: Determining a common set of weights in a DEA problem using a separation vector. Math. Comput. Model. 54, 2464–2470 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cook, W.D., Kress, M.: A data envelopment model for aggregating preference rankings. Manag. Sci. 36(11), 1302–1310 (1990)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ebrahimnejad, A.: A new approach for rank of candidate in voting system. OPSEARCH 49(2), 103–115 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ebrahimnejad, A.: Ranking of candidates in the preferential voting framework based on a new approach, Recent Researches in Applied Mathematics and Economics. In: Proceedings of the 6thInternational Conference on Applied Mathematics, Simulation, Modelling, pp. 78–81. Athens, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ebrahimnejad, A.: Data envelopment analysis approach for discriminating efficient candidates in voting systems by considering the priority of voters. Hacettepe J. Math.Stat (2015). doi: 10.15672/HJMS.2015489355
  7. 7.
    Foroughi, A.A., Tamiz, M.: An effective total ranking model for a ranked voting system. Omega 33, 491–496 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Foroughi, A.A., Jones, D.F., Tamiz, M.: A selection method for a preferential election. Appl. Math. Comput. 163, 107–116 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Green, R.H., Doyle, J.R., Cook, W.D.: Preference voting and project ranking using DEA and cross-evaluation. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 90, 461–472 (1996)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hashimoto, A.: A ranked voting system using a DEA/AR exclusion model: A note. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 97, 600–604 (1997)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jahanshaloo, G.R., Hosseinzadeh Lotfi, F., Khanmohammadi, M., Kazemimanesh, M., Rezaie, V.: Ranking of units by positive ideal DMU with common weights. Expert Syst. Appl. (2010). doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2010.04.011
  12. 12.
    Jahanshahloo, G.G.R., Khodabakhshi, M., Hosseinzadeh Lotfi, F., Moazami Goudarzi, M.R.: A cross-efficiency model based on super-efficiency for ranking units through the TOPSIS approach and its extension to the interval case. Math. Comput. Model. 53, 1946–1955 (2011)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Llamazares, B., Pena, T.: Preference aggregation and DEA: an analysis of the methods proposed to discriminate efficient candidates. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 197, 714–721 (2009)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liu, F.H.F., Peng, H.H.: Ranking of DMUs on the DEA frontier with common weights. Comput. Oper. Res. 35(5), 1624–1637 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Noguchi, H., Ogawa, M., Ishii, H.: The appropriate total ranking method using DEA for multiple categorized purposes. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 146(1), 155–166 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Obata, T., Ishii, H.: A method for discriminating efficient candidates with ranked voting data. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 151, 233–237 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sexton, T.R., Silkman, R.H., Hogan, A.J.: Data envelopment Analysis: Critique and extensions. In: Silkman, R.H. (ed.) Measuring Efficiency: An Assessment of Data Envelopment Analysis, pp. 73–105. Jossey-bass, San Francisco (1986)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wang, Y.M., Chin, K.S.: Discriminating DEA efficient candidates by considering their least relative total scores. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 206, 209–215 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wang, Y.M., Yang, J.-B., Xu, D.-L.: A preference aggregation method through the estimation of utility intervals. Comput. Oper. Res. 32, 2027–2049 (2005)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wang, N., Yi, R., Liu, D.: A solution method to the problem proposed by Wang in voting systems. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 221, 106–113 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The JJIAM Publishing Committee and Springer Japan 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics, Qaemshahr BranchIslamic Azad UniversityQaemshahrIran

Personalised recommendations