Mathematical Derivation of an Election System
1953; University of Chicago Press; Volume: 44; Issue: 1/2 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1086/348187
ISSN1545-6994
Autores Tópico(s)Water resources management and optimization
ResumoPrevious articleNext article No AccessMathematical Derivation of an Election SystemAlfred De GraziaAlfred De GraziaPDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Isis Volume 44, Number 1/2Jun., 1953 Publication of the History of Science Society Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/348187 Views: 12Total views on this site Citations: 88Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1953 History of Science Society, Inc.PDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Omid Emamjomehzadeh, Reza Kerachian, Mohammad Javad Emami-Skardi, Marzieh Momeni Combining urban metabolism and reinforcement learning concepts for sustainable water resources management: A nexus approach, Journal of Environmental Management 329 (Mar 2023): 117046.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.117046Weishu Li, Liying Yu, Wenying Xia, Jian Zhou, YvXiu Zhao, Mei Du Riding with the Surging Tide: A Review of MCDM's Evolution, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making 21, no.0303 (Mar 2022): 1087–1122.https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622022300014Fiorenzo Franceschini, Domenico A. Maisano Analysing paradoxes in design decisions: the case of "multiple-district" paradox, International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM) 14 (Mar 2022).https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-022-00860-xHannu Nurmi, Janusz Kacprzyk, Slawomir Zadrożny Voting Systems in Theory and Practice, (Oct 2021): 3–16.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84997-9_1Fiorenzo Franceschini, Domenico A. Maisano, Luca Mastrogiacomo Introduction to Rankings and Decisions in Engineering, (Feb 2022): 1–15.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89865-6_1Marc Neveling, Jörg Rothe Control Complexity in Borda Elections: Solving All Open Cases of Offline Control and Some Cases of Online Control, Artificial Intelligence (Apr 2021): 103508.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2021.103508Hannu Nurmi Group Decisions: Choosing a Winner by Voting, (May 2021): 413–438.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49629-6_11Hannu Nurmi The Incidence of Some Voting Paradoxes Under Domain Restrictions, Group Decision and Negotiation 29, no.66 (Aug 2020): 1107–1120.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-020-09697-9Hannu Nurmi Group Decisions: Choosing a Winner by Voting, (Dec 2019): 1–26.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12051-1_11-1Hannu Nurmi Electoral Reform and Social Choice Theory: Piecemeal Engineering and Selective Memory, (Nov 2019): 63–73.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-60555-4_5Subrata Chakraborty, Anuradha Mandal A Novel TOPSIS based Consensus Technique for Multiattribute Group Decision Making, (Sep 2018): 322–326.https://doi.org/10.1109/ISCIT.2018.8587952Sujoy Chatterjee, Anirban Mukhopadhyay, Malay Bhattacharyya A Weighted Rank aggregation approach towards crowd opinion analysis, Knowledge-Based Systems 149 (Jun 2018): 47–60.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2018.02.005Benjamin Hur, Sangsoo Lim, Heejoon Chae, Seokjun Seo, Sunwon Lee, Jaewoo Kang, Sun Kim CLIP-GENE: a web service of the condition specific context-laid integrative analysis for gene prioritization in mouse TF knockout experiments, Biology Direct 11, no.11 (Oct 2016).https://doi.org/10.1186/s13062-016-0158-xFiorenzo Franceschini, Domenico Maisano Checking the consistency of the solution in ordinal semi-democratic decision-making problems, Omega 57 (Dec 2015): 188–195.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.04.014Rushed Kanawati Empirical evaluation of applying ensemble methods to ego-centred community identification in complex networks, Neurocomputing 150 (Feb 2015): 417–427.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2014.09.042Dorothea Baumeister, Sophie Dennisen, Lisa Rey Winner Determination and Manipulation in Minisum and Minimax Committee Elections, (Aug 2015): 469–485.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23114-3_28Annika Kangas, Mikko Kurttila, Teppo Hujala, Kyle Eyvindson, Jyrki Kangas Voting Methods, (Jan 2015): 233–251.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23522-6_10Olivier Hudry Voting Procedures, Complexity of, (Jul 2015): 1–35.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27737-5_585-4Zied Yakoubi, Rushed Kanawati LICOD: A Leader-driven algorithm for community detection in complex networks, Vietnam Journal of Computer Science 1, no.44 (Sep 2014): 241–256.https://doi.org/10.1007/s40595-014-0025-6Debarka Sengupta, Aroonalok Pyne, Ujjwal Maulik, Sanghamitra Bandyopadhyay Reformulated Kemeny Optimal Aggregation with Application in Consensus Ranking of microRNA Targets, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics 10, no.33 (May 2013): 742–751.https://doi.org/10.1109/TCBB.2013.74Gustav Richnau, Per Angelstam, Sviataslau Valasiuk, Lyudmyla Zahvoyska, Robert Axelsson, Marine Elbakidze, Joshua Farley, Ingemar Jönsson, Ihor Soloviy Multifaceted Value Profiles of Forest Owner Categories in South Sweden: The River Helge å Catchment as a Case Study, AMBIO 42, no.22 (Mar 2013): 188–200.https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-012-0374-2Mario Fedrizzi, Michele Fedrizzi, R. A. Marques Pereira Consensus Modelling in Group Decision Making: A Dynamical Approach Based on Zadeh's Fuzzy Preferences, (Jan 2013): 165–170.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35641-4_25Janusz Kacprzyk, Sławomir Zadrożny, Hannu Nurmi, Mario Fedrizzi On Some Voting Paradoxes: A Fuzzy Preference and a Fuzzy Majority Perspective, (Jan 2013): 219–236.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35635-3_17D. Sengupta, U. Maulik, S. Bandyopadhyay Weighted Markov Chain Based Aggregation of Biomolecule Orderings, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics 9, no.33 (May 2012): 924–933.https://doi.org/10.1109/TCBB.2012.28Debarka Sengupta, Ujjwal Maulik, Sanghamitra Bandyopadhyay Score Based Aggregation of microRNA Target Orderings, (Jan 2012): 237–248.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30191-9_22T. Nicolaus Tideman, Florenz Plassmann Which Voting Rule is Most Likely to Choose the 'Best' Candidate?, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2012).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1939105D Sengupta, U Maulik, S Bandyopadhyay Entropy steered Kendall's tau measure for a fair Rank Aggregation, (Mar 2011): 1–5.https://doi.org/10.1109/NCETACS.2011.5751397Janusz Kacprzyk, Hannu Nurmi, Sławomir Zadrożny The Role of the OWA Operators as a Unification Tool for the Representation of Collective Choice Sets, (Jan 2011): 149–166.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17910-5_8V. Giannini, L. Ceccato, C. Hutton, A. A. Allan, S. Kienberger, W.-A. Flügel, C. Giupponi Development of responses based on IPCC and "what-if?" IWRM scenarios, Advances in Science and Research 7, no.11 (Apr 2011): 71–81.https://doi.org/10.5194/asr-7-71-2011Martin Herbert Kijazi, Shashi Kant Forest stakeholders' value preferences in Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania, Forest Policy and Economics 12, no.55 (Jun 2010): 357–369.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2010.02.007Janusz Kacprzyk, Sławomir Zadrożny Towards a general and unified characterization of individual and collective choice functions under fuzzy and nonfuzzy preferences and majority via the ordered weighted average operators, International Journal of Intelligent Systems 24, no.11 (Jan 2009): 4–26.https://doi.org/10.1002/int.20325Marcel K. Richter, Kam-Chau Wong Preference densities and social choices, Economic Theory 36, no.22 (Aug 2007): 225–238.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00199-007-0271-2Alexis Tsoukiàs From decision theory to decision aiding methodology, European Journal of Operational Research 187, no.11 (May 2008): 138–161.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.02.039Donald E. Campbell, Jerry S. Kelly Social welfare functions that satisfy Pareto, anonymity, and neutrality, but not independence of irrelevant alternatives, Social Choice and Welfare 29, no.11 (Sep 2006): 69–82.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-006-0193-0Patrik Eklund, Agnieszka Rusinowska, Harrie De Swart Consensus reaching in committees, European Journal of Operational Research 178, no.11 (Apr 2007): 185–193.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.11.012Martin Utley, Steve Gallivan, Mary Mills, Marisa Mason, Christobel Hargraves A consensus process for identifying a prioritised list of study questions, Health Care Management Science 10, no.11 (Dec 2006): 105–110.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10729-006-9003-6Madjid Tavana, Frank LoPinto, James W. Smither A Hybrid Distance-Based Ideal-Seeking Consensus Ranking Model, Journal of Applied Mathematics and Decision Sciences 2007 (Jan 2007): 1–18.https://doi.org/10.1155/2007/20489Agnieszka Rusinowska, Rudolf Berghammer, Patrik Eklund, Jan-Willem van der Rijt, Marc Roubens, Harrie de Swart Social Software for Coalition Formation, (Jan 2006): 1–30.https://doi.org/10.1007/11964810_1Hannu Nurmi Aggregation problems in policy evaluation: an overview, European Journal of Political Economy 21, no.22 (Jun 2005): 287–300.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2004.08.001Hannu Nurmi, Maria Suojanen Assessing Contestability of Electoral Outcomes, Quality & Quantity 38, no.66 (Dec 2004): 719–733.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-004-4756-9Hannu Nurmi A Comparison of Some Distance-Based Choice Rules in Ranking Environments, Theory and Decision 57, no.11 (Aug 2004): 5–24.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-004-3671-9Harrie de Swart, Ad van Deemen, Eliora van der Hout, Peter Kop Categoric and Ordinal Voting: An Overview, (Jan 2003): 147–195.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24615-2_8Hannu Nurmi, Janusz Kacprzyk Social Choice under Fuzziness: A Perspective, (Jan 2000): 107–130.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7908-1848-2_7Amartya Sen The Possibility of Social Choice, American Economic Review 89, no.33 (Jun 1999): 349–378.https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.89.3.349Hannu Nurmi Referendum Design: An Exercise in Applied Social Choice Theory, Scandinavian Political Studies 20, no.11 (Mar 1997): 33–52.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9477.1997.tb00183.xRobert Forsythe, Thomas Rietz, Roger Myerson, Robert Weber An experimental study of voting rules and polls in three-candidate elections, International Journal of Game Theory 25, no.33 (Sep 1996): 355–383.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02425262Donald G. Saari, Vincent R. Merlin The Copeland method, Economic Theory 8, no.11 (Feb 1996): 51–76.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01212012Donald G. Saari Election Relations and a Partial Ordering for Positional Voting, (Jan 1996): 93–110.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8767-9_5Donald G. Saari References, (Jan 1995): 291–295.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-57748-2_7Hannu Nurmi Preferences, choices, tournaments: Alternative foundations for the evaluation of voting schemes, Quality & Quantity 25, no.44 (Nov 1991): 393–405.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02484588I. McLean The borda and condorcet principles: Three medieval applications, Social Choice and Welfare 7, no.22 (Apr 1990): 99–108.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01560577Hannu Nurmi, Mario Fedrizzi, Janusz Kacprzyk Vague Notions in the Theory of Voting, (Jan 1990): 43–52.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2109-2_3Hannu Nurmi Discrepancies in the outcomes resulting from different voting schemes, Theory and Decision 25, no.22 (Sep 1988): 193–208.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00134159Pierre-Gerlier Forest Les techniciens de la représentation: contribution à l'histoire des études électorales, Canadian Journal of Political Science 19, no.44 (Nov 2009): 679–704.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423900055104Hannu Nurmi Mathematical models of elections and their relevance for institutional design, Electoral Studies 5, no.22 (Aug 1986): 167–181.https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-3794(86)90005-3Maria Misztal Value Systems among Occupational Groups, International Journal of Sociology 16, no.1-21-2 (Nov 2016): 160–173.https://doi.org/10.1080/15579336.1986.11769904Hannu Nurmi, Yrjö Uusi-Heikkilä Computer simulations of approval and plurality voting: The frequency of weak pareto violations and condorcet loser choices in impartial cultures, European Journal of Political Economy 2, no.11 (Jan 1986): 47–59.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0176-2680(86)80004-0Hannu Nurmi On the strategic properties of some modern methods of group decision making, Behavioral Science 29, no.44 (Oct 1984): 248–257.https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830290404John O. Ledyard The pure theory of large two-candidate elections, Public Choice 44, no.11 (Jan 1984): 7–41.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00124816Peter C. Fishburn Dimensions of election procedures: Analyses and comparisons, Theory and Decision 15, no.44 (Dec 1983): 371–397.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00162114Peter C. Fishburn Research in decision theory: A personal perspective, Mathematical Social Sciences 5, no.22 (Sep 1983): 129–148.https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-4896(83)90014-8Peter C. Fishburn, Steven J. Brams Paradoxes of Preferential Voting, Mathematics Magazine 56, no.44 (Feb 2018): 207–214.https://doi.org/10.1080/0025570X.1983.11977044Robert M. May Electoral procedures: Preference and paradox, Nature 303, no.59125912 (May 1983): 16–17.https://doi.org/10.1038/303016a0Hannu Nurmi Voting Procedures: A Summary Analysis, British Journal of Political Science 13, no.22 (Jan 2009): 181–208.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123400003215Martin Weber Literatur, (Jan 1983): 207–225.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-87943-1_8 References, (Jan 1982): 281–294.https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-026070-9.50020-5Hannu Nurmi On the Properties of Voting Systems, Scandinavian Political Studies 4, no.11 (Mar 1981): 19–32.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9477.1981.tb00413.xPeter C. Fishburn Inverted orders for monotone scoring rules, Discrete Applied Mathematics 3, no.11 (Feb 1981): 27–36.https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-218X(81)90025-1ALLAN FELDMAN MANIPULATING VOTING PROCEDURES, Economic Inquiry 17, no.33 (Jul 1979): 452–474.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.1979.tb00542.xK. J. Arrow Öffentliche und private Wertvorstellungen, (Jan 1979): 130–149.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-67420-4_5Peter C. Fishburn Condorcet Social Choice Functions, SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics 33, no.33 (Nov 1977): 469–489.https://doi.org/10.1137/0133030Donald E. Campbell Computational Criteria for Voting Systems, British Journal of Political Science 7, no.11 (Jan 2009): 85–98.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123400003987Peter C. Fishburn, William V. Gehrlein Borda's rule, positional voting, and Condorcet's simple majority principle, Public Choice 28, no.11 (Dec 1976): 79–88.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01718459Peter C. Fishburn, William V. Gehrlein An analysis of simple two-stage voting systems, Behavioral Science 21, no.11 (Jan 1976): 1–12.https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830210102ANDREW M. COLMAN, IAN POUNTNEY VOTING PARADOXES:. A Socratic Dialogue, The Political Quarterly 46, no.22 (Apr 1975): 186–190.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-923X.1975.tb02125.xPeter C. Fishburn Paradoxes of Voting, American Political Science Review 68, no.22 (Aug 2014): 537–546.https://doi.org/10.1017/S000305540011737XPeter C. Fishburn Paradoxes of Voting, American Political Science Review 68, no.22 (Aug 2014): 537–546.https://doi.org/10.2307/1959503Peter C. Fishburn Simple voting systems and majority rule, Behavioral Science 19, no.33 (May 1974): 166–176.https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830190303Peter C. Fishburn Social Choice Functions, SIAM Review 16, no.11 (Jan 1974): 63–90.https://doi.org/10.1137/1016005Peter C. Fishburn A comparative analysis of group decision methods, Behavioral Science 16, no.66 (Nov 1971): 538–544.https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830160604Steven J. Brams The APSA and Minority Representation, PS: Political Science & Politics 3, no.0303 (Sep 2013): 321–335.https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096500029073Steven J. Brams The APSA and Minority Representation, PS 3, no.33 (Nov 2022): 321–335.https://doi.org/10.1017/S003082690001033XSteven J. Brams The APSA and Minority Representation, PS 3, no.33 (Nov 2022): 321–335.https://doi.org/10.2307/418036Janusz Kacprzyk, Sławomir Zadrożny, Mario Fedrizzi, Hannu Nurmi On Group Decision Making, Consensus Reaching, Voting and Voting Paradoxes under Fuzzy Preferences and a Fuzzy Majority: A Survey and some Perspectives, (): 263–295.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73723-0_14Bernard Grofman Some notes on voting schemes and the will of the majority, Public Choice 7-7, no.11 (Sep 1969): 65–80.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01718734Richard R. Fagen Some Contributions of Mathematical Reasoning to the Study of Politics, American Political Science Review 55, no.0404 (Aug 2014): 888–900.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055400126073Richard R. Fagen Some Contributions of Mathematical Reasoning to the Study of Politics, American Political Science Review 55, no.44 (Aug 2014): 888–900.https://doi.org/10.2307/1952536 I. Bernard Cohen , and Katharine Strelsky Eightieth Critical Bibliography of the History of Science and Its Cultural Influences (To 1 January 1954), Isis 46, no.22 (Oct 2015): 111–220.https://doi.org/10.1086/348406
Referência(s)