Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The wisdom of voters: evaluating the Weber objective in the plane at the Condorcet solution

  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We investigate the quality of Condorcet solutions when compared to a central decision maker solution in the context of a facility location model in the plane. We perform an extensive set of experiments and conclude that if each population member votes according to his/her own self interest, then the Weber objective at the Condorcet solution point is very close to the optimal Weber objective value. Reducing the set of voters has little impact on the quality of the Condorcet solution. Being short of a good candidate has some impact but the final decision is still a good one. The distance metric seems to be of little relevance as well. As long as candidates are diverse, the Condorcet solution results in a good decision when compared to the decision by a benevolent dictator.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We thank Arie Tamir for turning our attention to this proof.

References

  • Berman, O., Drezner, T., Drezner, Z., & Krass, D. (2009). Modeling competitive facility location problems: New approaches and results. In M. Oskoorouchi (Ed.), TutORials in operations research (pp. 156–181). San Diego: INFORMS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campos-Rodríguez, C. M., & Moreno-Pérez, J. A. (2000). Comparison of \(\alpha \)-condorcet points with median and center locations. Sociaded de Estadistica e Investigacion Operativa TOP, 8, 215–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campos-Rodríguez, C. M., & Moreno-Pérez, J. A. (2008). Multiple voting location problems. European Journal of Operational Research, 191, 437–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drezner, T. (1994a). Locating a single new facility among existing unequally attractive facilities. Journal of Regional Science, 34, 237–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drezner, T. (1994b). Optimal continuous location of a retail facility, facility attractiveness, and market share: An interactive model. Journal of Retailing, 70, 49–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drezner, T., & Drezner, Z. (2007). Equity models in planar location. Computational Management Science, 4, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drezner, Z. (1982). Competitive location strategies for two facilities. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 12, 485–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drezner, Z. (1996). A note on accelerating the Weiszfeld procedure. Location Science, 3, 275–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drezner, Z. (2007). A general global optimization approach for solving location problems in the plane. Journal of Global Optimization, 37, 305–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drezner, Z., Klamroth, K., Schöbel, A., & Wesolowsky, G. O. (2002). The Weber problem. In Z. Drezner & H. W. Hamacher (Eds.), Facility location: Applications and theory (pp. 1–36). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Drezner, Z., & Simchi-Levi, D. (1992). Asymptotic behavior of the Weber location problem on the plane. Annals of Operations Research, 40, 163–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drezner, Z., & Suzuki, A. (2004). The big triangle small triangle method for the solution of non-convex facility location problems. Operations Research, 52, 128–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drezner, Z., & Wesolowsky, G. O. (1978). A trajectory method for the optimization of the multifacility location problem with \(\ell _p\) distances. Management Science, 24, 1507–1514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drezner, Z., & Wesolowsky, G. O. (1980). Single facility \(\ell _p\) distance minimax location. SIAM Journal of Algebraic and Discrete Methods, 1, 315–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drezner, Z., & Wesolowsky, G. O. (1981). Optimum location probabilities in the \(\ell _p\) distance Weber problem. Transportation Science, 15, 85–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francis, R. L., McGinnis, L. F, Jr, & White, J. A. (1992). Facility layout and location: An analytical approach (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hakimi, S. L. (1983). On locating new facilities in a competitive environment. European Journal of Operational Research, 12, 29–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hakimi, S. L. (1986). p-Median theorems for competitive location. Annals of Operations Research, 6, 77–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, P., & Labbè, M. (1988). Algorithms for voting and competitive location on a network. Transportation Science, 22, 278–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, P., & Thisse, J.-F. (1981). Outcomes of voting and planning. Journal of Public Economics, 16, 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, P., Thisse, J.-F., & Wendel, R. E. (1986). Equivalence of solutions to network location problems. Mathematics of Operations Research, 11, 673–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hotelling, H. (1929). Stability in competition. Economic Journal, 39, 41–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huff, D. L. (1964). Defining and estimating a trade area. Journal of Marketing, 28, 34–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huff, D. L. (1966). A programmed solution for approximating an optimum retail location. Land Economics, 42, 293–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalsch, M. T., & Drezner, Z. (2010). Solving scheduling and location problems in the plane simultaneously. Computers and Operations Research, 37, 256–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, D. T., & Schachter, B. J. (1980). Two algorithms for constructing a Delaunay triangulation. International Journal of Parallel Programming, 9(3), 219–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Love, R. F., & Morris, J. G. (1972). Modeling inter-city road distances by mathematical functions. Operational Research Quarterly, 23, 61–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Love, R. F., Morris, J. G., & Wesolowsky, G. O. (1988). Facilities location: Models & methods. New York, NY: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menezes, M. B. C., & Huang, R. (2014). Comparison of Condorcet and Weber solutions on a plane: Social choice versus centralization. Computers and Operations Research. doi:10.1016/j.cor.2013.12.007i

  • Noltemeier, H., Spoerhase, J., & Wirth, H.-C. (2007). Multiple voting location and single voting location on trees. European Journal of Operational Research, 181, 654–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reilly, W. J. (1931). The law of retail gravitation. New York, NY: Knickerbocker Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, A. D., & Pacelli, A. (2008). Mathematics and politics (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weiszfeld, E. (1936). Sur le point pour lequel la somme des distances de n points donnes est minimum. Tohoku Mathematical Journal, 43, 355–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiszfeld, E., & Plastria, F. (2009). On the point for which the sum of the distances to n given points is minimum. Annals of Operations Research, 167, 7–41. English Translation of [33].

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wendel, R. E., & Thorson, S. J. (1974). Some generalizations of social decisions under majority rules. Econometrica, 42, 893–912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wendell, R. E., & Hurter, A. P. (1973). Location theory, dominance and convexity. Operations Research, 21, 314–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was partially funded by Subprograma Ramón y Cajal, Dirección General de Investigación y Gestión del Plan Nacional de I+D, reference RYC-2011-08762, Spain. The authors acknowledge and thanks the work of the editorial group and two anonymous referee for their suggestions and wise comments. The second author thanks Professor Yoshitsugu Yamamoto, from University of Tsukuba, for his help at early stages of the development of the ideas discussed in this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Steven G. Mihaylo College of Business and Economics, California State University-Fullerton, Fullerton, CA, 92834, USA

    Zvi Drezner

  2. Operations Management and Information Systems Department, Kedge Business School-Bordeaux, 680 cours de la Libération, 33405, Talence Cedex, France

    Mozart B. C. Menezes

Authors
  1. Zvi Drezner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mozart B. C. Menezes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mozart B. C. Menezes.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Drezner, Z., Menezes, M.B.C. The wisdom of voters: evaluating the Weber objective in the plane at the Condorcet solution. Ann Oper Res 246, 205–226 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-015-1906-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-015-1906-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation