CS5209 Individual Assignment

Where to Build a New Canteen?

RAGHAV SINGHAL (U2023945J)
Given the parameters outlined in this inquiry, this study presents three distinct approaches for
consolidating the viewpoints of students in order to determine the optimal location for the new
cafeteria.
First alternative: Appointing a leader.
One potential alternate approach to using majority rule is the selection of a designated leader
who would be entrusted with the responsibility of determining an appropriate place on the campus for
the establishment of a new cafeteria. This particular approach demonstrates superior efficiency and
expediency compared to other methods of collaborative decision-making. Nevertheless, there are
many difficulties associated with this issue, one of which pertains to the potential prejudice that may
arise from the leading college department. What is the optimal method for the selection of a leader? Is
the leader characterized by rationality? Furthermore, and so on. These issues have the potential to
provide more uncertainty and may result in an outcome that lacks fairness.
Second alternative: Constructing an algorithm.
An alternative approach to determining the optimal location for the cafeteria is convening a
committee with representatives from each institution to collaboratively develop an algorithm for
selecting the most suitable site for the canteen. By using this approach, it may be ensured that the
algorithm's output will be based on real information and perhaps represent the optimal choice.
Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge that there exist some problems in this context. It is
possible that not all students possess the necessary skills to effectively design an algorithm.
Additionally, it is crucial to recognize that even if an algorithm is successfully created, there is a
possibility that it may not provide a 100% accurate outcome. Furthermore, this approach may need a
greater investment of time and effort compared to the use of a majority-based decision-making
process.
Third alternative: multiple choice survey/poll. Also known as Borda count
The third option entails the use of a multiple-choice survey or poll. Also referred to as the Borda
count. One other option that may be used is the employment of a multiple-choice survey, often
referred to as the Borda count method. In order to ascertain the collective preferences of the student
body, it is imperative to use a survey methodology. This survey will require students to choose their
first, second, and third choices for canteen sites. This methodology enables the assessment of the
relative fairness of different positions inside the canteen by consolidating all three options.
If we evaluate the three best choices for each college department, we can come to a certain ranking
which has been depicted in the table below.
College department Choice 1 Choice 2 Choice 3
Engineering (420) A B D
Humanities and B C D
social sciences (260)
Science (110) C D B
Business (60) C D B
International studies D C B
(150)

Location D is the most favored across all departments in comparison to any other site on the
campus. Canteen D was selected as the primary choice by one college, as the secondary choice by two
colleges, and as the tertiary choice by two colleges. Positively comparing D to B and C.

1
CS5209 Individual Assignment

The use of this survey and aggregation approach is superior to the application of majority rule
due to its ability to account for a voter's complete preference order. Majority rule, on the other hand,
disregards most of a voter's preferences and fails to consider the potential negative consequences of
not resolving conflicts of interest via the inclusion of second or third choices.
Based on the evaluation of the possibilities presented in this article, it can be argued that the
implementation of a Borda count is a favorable technique for selecting a suitable location for the
canteen. The aforementioned attributes, including dependability, cost-effectiveness, and fairness,
contribute to its viability as a viable option. Multiple-choice surveys have been used in many contexts,
including political identification surveys and pre-election surveys, to gather information on a range of
daily concerns. By soliciting respondents to provide a hierarchical ranking of political parties based
on their first, second, and third choices, analysts may ascertain the likelihood of each party's success
in the election. This methodology is often used for the purpose of gathering statistical data in advance
of electoral events. In addition, I feel that the same strategy may be effective if two canteens were to
be created instead of one. In this instance, the best option would be canteen D and the second-best
option would be canteen B, given that canteen B was selected as the first option by one college, as the
second option by one college, and as the third option by three colleges. Making canteen B the second-
most-popular option among all canteens.
Furthermore, it is my contention that using the same approach may provide favorable
outcomes in the event if two separate dining facilities were established rather than one. In this case,
canteen D emerges as the most favorable choice, while canteen B ranks as the second most preferable
alternative. This conclusion is drawn based on the fact that canteen B was designated as the primary
choice by one college, the secondary choice by one college, and the tertiary choice by three colleges.
Canteen B has achieved the status of being the second most popular choice among all available
canteens.
In general, it is my perspective that the Borda Count method is a viable alternative that has
yielded fair results for all pupils. Considering the preference order will provide a solution that is more
optimal compared to just choosing the first available option. The scenario has a striking resemblance
to real-world situations when a limited number of individuals are compelled to reach a compromise
due to the absence of a socially beneficial alternative for all parties involved. In a same manner,
within the realm of reality, it is evident that no solution can achieve social optimality for all
individuals. However, via the process of making little compromises, it becomes possible to choose a
solution that yields advantages for the whole population.