Evaluation of the Current Decision Rule in Figure Skating and Possible Improvements

American Statistician

Volumn 58, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 46-54

  Wu, Samuel S ^a   Yang, Mark C K ^a  

^a University of Florida   (United States)

Author keywords

Median rank placement; Rank sum decision rule; Voting

Indexed keywords

EID: 1342289471     PISSN: 00031305     EISSN: 15372731     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1198/0003130042818     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Arrow, K. J. (1963), Social Choice and Individual Values (2nd ed.), New York: John Wiley.
2. Bassett, G.W., andPersky, J. (1994),“Rating Skating,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 89, 1075-1079.
3. Berg, S., and Lepelley, D. (1994), “On Probability Models in Voting Theory,” Statistica Neerlandia, 48, 133-146.
4. Borda, J. de (1781), Memoiresurles elections auscrutin, Histoiredel’Academie Royale des Sciences. (Translated in Sommerlad and McLean (1989), 122-129.)
5. Berry, S. M. (2002), “Gold Medals, Protests, and Trading Ratings: The 2002 Winter Olympics Figure Skating,” Chance, 15, 14-18.
6. Condorcet, M.de (1785), Essai sur l’applicationde l' analyse a la probabilité des décisions renduesa lapluralité des voix, Paris: Imprimerie Royale.(Translated in Sommerlad and McLean (1989), 69-80.)
7. David, H. A. (1988), The Method of Paired Comparisons (2nd ed.), London: Chapman and Hall.
8. Gehrlein, W. V. (1997), “Condorcet’s Paradox and the Condorcet Efficiency of Voting Rules,” Mathematica Japonica, 45, 173-199.
9. Gibbard, A. F. (1973), “Manipulation of Voting Scheme: A General Result,” Econometrica, 41, 587-601.
10. Glickman, M. E. (1999), “Parameter Estimation in Large Dynamic Paired Comparison Experiments,” Applied Statistics, 48, 377-394.
11. Glickman, M. E., and Jensen, S. T. (in press), “Adaptive Paired Comparison Design,” Journal of Statistical Planning and lnference.
12. Matthews, P. (2003), “AccelRat Software for Go Player Ratings and Tournament Pairings,” availabe at http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/accelrat/; accessed on October 5, 2003.
13. Nanson, E. J. (1882), “Methods of Election,” Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria XIX, 197-240
14. Nurmi, H. (1999), Voting Paradoxes and How to Deal with Them, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
15. Saari, D. G. (1995), Basic Geometry of Voting, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
16. Satterthwaite, M. A. (1975), “Strategy Proofness and Arrow’s Conditions: Existence and Correspondence Theorems for Voting Procedures and Social Welfare Functions,” Journal of Economic Theory, 10, 187-217.
17. Sommerlad, F., and McLean, I. (1989), ThePolitical Theory of Condorcet, University of Oxford Working Paper.
18. U. S. Figure Skating Association (1998), The Official Book of Figure Skating, New York: Simon & Schuster.