Advertisement

Comparing Results of Voting by Statistical Rank Tests

  • Krzysztof Przybyszewski
  • Honorata SosnowskaEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11290)

Abstract

In the paper the results of voting by different voting methods are presented and analyzed. Approval voting, disapproval voting, categorization method and classical majority voting are compared using results of a presidential poll conducted over a representative sample. Results differ depending on the voting methods used. However, from the statistical point of view, within the same valuation scope (positive, if voting is constructed so that the vote is “for” the candidate and negative, if the vote is “against”) the order of the candidates remains similar across the methods.

Keywords

Votings Experiments Statistical rank tests 

References

  1. 1.
    Nurmi, H.: Comparing Voting Systems. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hołubiec, J.W., Mercik, J.W.: Inside Voting Procedures, p. 3. Accedo Verlagsgesellschaft, Munich (1994)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ordeshook, P.: Game Theory and Political Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brams, S.J., Fisburn, P.C.: Approval voting. A. Political Sci. Rev. 72(3), 831–847 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brams, S., Fisburn, P.C.: Approval Voting. Birkhaser, Boston (1983)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    The “Wisnumurti Guidelines” for Selecting a Candidate for Secretary-General (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Felsenthal, D.S.: On combining approval voting with disapproval voting. Behav. Sci. 34, 53–60 (1989).  https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.383040105MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Alcantud, J.C., Laruelle, A.: Dis&approval voting: a characterization. Soc. Choice Welf. 43, 1–10 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-013-0766-7MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hillinger, C.: Voting and cardinal aggregation of judgments. Discussion Paper 2004-09, University of Munich (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hillinger, C.: The case for utilitarian voting. Homo Oeconomicus 22, 295–321 (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Malawski, M., Przybyszewski, K., Sosnowska, H.: Cognitive effort of voters under three different voting methods-an experimental study. Badania Operacyjne i Decyzje (Oper. Res. Decis.) 3–4, 69–79 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Przybyszewski, K., Sosnowska, H.: Approval voting as a polling method. J. Polit. Mark. (Submitted to 2018)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chirumbolo, A.: The relationship between need for cognitive closure and political orientation: the mediating role of authoritarianism. Pers. Individ. Differ. 32, 603–610 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Abdi, H.: Kendall rank correlation. In: Salking, N.J. (ed.) Encyklopedia of measure and statistics. Sage, Thousand Oaks (CA) (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kendall, M.G.: Rank Correlation Methods. Charles Griffin & Company Limited, London (1948)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Spearman, C.: The proof and measurement of association between two things. Am. J. Psychol. 15, 72–101 (1904)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Przybyszewski, K., Sosnowska, H.: Approval voting as a method of prediction in political votings. Case of polish elections. In: Nguyen, N.T., Kowalczyk, R., Mercik, J. (eds.) Transactions on Computational Collective Intelligence XXIII. LNCS, vol. 9760, pp. 17–28. Springer, Heidelberg (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-52886-0_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: A framing of decisions and psychology of choice. Science 211, 453–458 (1981)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leon Kozminski AcademyWarsawPoland
  2. 2.Warsaw School of EconomicsWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations