Abstract
The formal equivalence between social choice and statistical estimation means that criteria used to evaluate estimators can be interpreted as features of voting rules. The robustness of an estimator means, in the context of social choice, insensitivity to departures from majority opinion. In this paper we consider the implications of substituting the median, a robust, high breakdown estimator, for Borda's mean. The robustness of the median makes the ranking method insensitive to outliers and reflect majority opinion. Among all methods that satisfy a majority condition, median ranks is the unique one that is monotonic. It is an attractive voting method when the goal is the collective assessment of the merits of alternatives.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bassett, G.W. (1991). Equivariant, Monotone, 50% Breakdown Estimators. The American Statistician: 135–137.
Bassett, G.W. and Persky, J. (1994). Rating skating. Journal of the American Statistical Association 89(427): 1075–1079.
Hampel, F.R., Ronchetti, E., Rousseeuw, P.J. and Stahel, W.A. (1986). Robust statistics: The approach based on influence functions. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Hettmansperger, T.P. and Sheather, S.J. (1992). A cautionary note on the method of least median squares. The American Statistician 46: 79–83.
Koenker, R. (1982). Robust methods in econometrics. Econometric Reviews 1: 213–225.
Levin, J. and Nalebuff, B. (1995). An introduction to votecounting schemes. Journal of Economic Perspectives 9(1): 3–26.
Levy, D. (1989). The statistical basis of AthenianAmerican constitutional theory. Journal of Legal Studies 18: 79–103.
McLean I. (1995). Independence of irrelevant alternatives before Arrow. Mathematical Social Sciences 30: 107–126.
McLean, I. and Urken, A.B. (1995). Classics of social choice theory. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Mosteller, F. and Tukey, J.W. (1977). Data analysis and regression. AddisonWesley.
Nanson, E.J. ([1882], 1907). Methods of election, paper read to the Royal Society of Victoria on 12 October 1882, printed in Reports::: respecting the application of the principle of proportional representation to public elections, Cd. 3501. London: HMSO 1907. 123–141. In McLean and Urken (1995)
Rousseeuw, P.J. (1984). Leastmedian of squares regression. Journal of the American Statistical Association 79(388), December.
Rousseeuw, P.J. (1994). Unconventional features of positivebreakdown estimators. Statistics and Probability Letters 19(5): 417–431.
Sen, A. (1995a). Rationality and social choice. American Economic Review 85(1): 1–24.
Sen, A. (1995b). How to judge voting schemes. Journal of Economic Perspectives: 91–98.
Small, C.G. (1990). A survey of multidimensional medians. International Statistical Review 58: 263–277.
Young, H.P. (1988). Condorcet's theory of voting. American Political Science Review 82(4): 1231–1244.
Young, H.P. (1995). Optimal voting rules. Journal of Economic Perspectives 9(1): 51–56.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bassett, G.W., Persky, J. Robust voting. Public Choice 99, 299–310 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018324807861
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018324807861