Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Complexities of electing diverse committees

  • Published:
Social Choice and Welfare Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Electing a committee introduces constraints beyond excellence, such as ensuring a balance of gender, tenure, talent, and other characteristics. The difficulties are captured by an actual example where every voter desired gender diversity on a committee and voted accordingly, but only men were elected. After developing the properties of certain methods that avoid these problems, other needs in this area are described.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This is not hypothetical; when one of us (DGS) tallied CMC ballots for two different years, it was clear that some voters had adopted this strategic voting behavior.

References

  • Barberà S, Sonnenschein H, Zhou L (1991) Voting by committees. Econometrica 59:595–609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barberà S, Massó J, Neme A (2005) Voting by committees under constraints. J Econ Theory 122:185–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chamberlin JR, Courant PN (1983) Representative deliberations and representative decisions: proportional representation and the Borda rule. Am Polit Sci Rev 77:718–733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodgson CL, Abeles FF (2011) The pamphlets of Lewis Carroll. In: Carroll L, Abeles F (eds) The political pamphlets and letters of Charles Lutwidge Dodgson and related pieces: a mathematical approach. Lewis Carroll Society of North America, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Fréchette G, Maniquet F, Morelli M (2008) Incumbents interests and gender quotas. Am J Polit Sci 52:891–909

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gehrlein WV (2002) Condorcet’s paradox and the likelihood of its occurrence: different perspectives on balanced preferences. Theory Decis 52:171–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratliff TC (2006) Selecting committees. Public Choice 126:343–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratliff TC (2001) A comparison of Dodgson’s method and Kemeny’s rule. Soc Choice Welf 18:79–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratliff TC (2002) A comparison of Dodgson’s method and the Borda count. Econ Theory 20:357–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratliff TC (2003) Some startling inconsistencies when electing committees. Soc Choice Welf 2003:433–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saari DG (1995) Basic geometry of voting. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Saari DG (2006) Proposal for a change in class V voting rules. Econ Theory 28:265–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saari DG (2008) Disposing dictators, demystifying voting paradoxes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Saari’s research was partly supported by a research Grant NSF CMMI-1016785. Our thanks to the referees and an Associate Editor for several useful suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas C. Ratliff.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ratliff, T.C., Saari, D.G. Complexities of electing diverse committees. Soc Choice Welf 43, 55–71 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-013-0773-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-013-0773-8

Keywords

Navigation