Bitte verwenden Sie diesen Link, um diese Publikation zu zitieren, oder auf sie als Internetquelle zu verweisen: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/287369 
Autor:innen: 
Erscheinungsjahr: 
2021
Quellenangabe: 
[Journal:] Group Decision and Negotiation [ISSN:] 1572-9907 [Volume:] 30 [Issue:] 4 [Publisher:] Springer Netherlands [Place:] Dordrecht [Year:] 2021 [Pages:] 775-787
Verlag: 
Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht
Zusammenfassung: 
When choosing among alternatives, group members may have various preferences regarding the properties of a solution being sought. Since the properties partially do and partially do not meet their collective wishes, the alternatives are in fact better or worse representatives of the collective will. This idea is implemented in the so-called Third Vote election method aimed at enhancing policy representation, and we show how to use it for collective multi-criteria decision making. To be specific, we consider an example of a committee charged with naming a campus library when neither plurality vote nor Condorcet method nor Borda count gives a unique solution. The committee members have differing opinions, such as whether the library should reflect the national affiliation, be named after a great man, relate to sciences, and so forth. Balancing opinion on these issues, the proposed library names are evaluated and the optimal compromise is found.
Schlagwörter: 
Collective multi-criteria decisions
Third Vote election method
Theory of voting
JEL: 
D71
Persistent Identifier der Erstveröffentlichung: 
Creative-Commons-Lizenz: 
cc-by Logo
Dokumentart: 
Article
Dokumentversion: 
Published Version

Datei(en):
Datei
Größe





Publikationen in EconStor sind urheberrechtlich geschützt.