This paper considers a voting problem in which the individual preferences of electors are defined by the ranked lists of candidates. For single-winner elections, we apply the criterion of weak positional dominance (WPD, PD), which is closely related to the positional scoring rules. Also we formulate the criterion of weak mutual majority (WMM), which is stronger than the majority criterion but weaker than the criterion of mutual majority (MM). Then we construct two modifications for the median voting rule that satisfy the Condorcet loser criterion. As shown below, WPD and WMM are satisfied for the first modification while PD and MM for the second modification. We prove that there is no rule satisfying WPD and MM simultaneously. Finally, we check a list of 37 criteria for the constructed rules.
In the problem of aggregation of rankings or preferences of several agents, there is a well-known result that reasonable social ranking is not strategy-proof. In other words, there are some situations when at least one agent can submit insincere ranking and change the final result in a way beneficial to him. We call this situation manipulable and using computer modelling we study 10 majority relation-based collective decision rules and compare them by their degree of manipulability, i.e. by the share of the situation in which manipulation is possible. We found that there is no rule that is best for all possible cases but some rules like Fishburn rule, Minimal undominated set and Uncovered set II are among the least manipulable ones.