A comparison of theoretical and empirical evaluations of the Borda Compromise

William Gehrlein () and Florenz Plassmann ()

Social Choice and Welfare, 2014, vol. 43, issue 3, 747-772

Abstract: The Borda Compromise states that, if one has to choose among five popular voting rules that are not Condorcet consistent, one should always give preference to the Borda rule over the four other rules. We assess the theoretical as well as the empirical support for the Borda Compromise. We find that, despite considerable differences between the properties of the theoretical framework and the characteristics of two sets of observed ranking data, all three analyses provide considerable support for the Borda Compromise. Copyright Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Date: 2014
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (6)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s00355-014-0798-7 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:sochwe:v:43:y:2014:i:3:p:747-772

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer. ... c+theory/journal/355

DOI: 10.1007/s00355-014-0798-7

Access Statistics for this article

Social Choice and Welfare is currently edited by Bhaskar Dutta, Marc Fleurbaey, Elizabeth Maggie Penn and Clemens Puppe

More articles in Social Choice and Welfare from Springer, The Society for Social Choice and Welfare Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().