Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/287369 
Year of Publication: 
2021
Citation: 
[Journal:] Group Decision and Negotiation [ISSN:] 1572-9907 [Volume:] 30 [Issue:] 4 [Publisher:] Springer Netherlands [Place:] Dordrecht [Year:] 2021 [Pages:] 775-787
Publisher: 
Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht
Abstract: 
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.
Subjects: 
Collective multi-criteria decisions
Third Vote election method
Theory of voting
JEL: 
D71
Persistent Identifier of the first edition: 
Creative Commons License: 
cc-by Logo
Document Type: 
Article
Document Version: 
Published Version

Files in This Item:
File
Size





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.