How should we score athletes and candidates: geometric scoring rules

Scoring rules are widely used to rank athletes in sports and candidates in elections. Each position in each individual ranking is worth a certain number of points; the total sum of points determines the aggregate ranking. The question is how to choose a scoring rule for a specific application. First, we derive a one-parameter family with geometric scores which satisfies two principles of independence: once an extremely strong or weak candidate is removed, the aggregate ranking ought to remain intact. This family includes Borda count, generalised plurality (medal count), and generalised antiplurality (threshold rule) as edge cases, and we find which additional axioms characterise these rules. Second, we introduce a one-parameter family with optimal scores: the athletes should be ranked according to their expected overall quality. Finally, using historical data from biathlon, golf, and running we demonstrate how the geometric and optimal scores can simplify the selection of suitable scoring rules, show that these scores closely resemble the actual scores used by the organisers, and provide an explanation for empirical phenomena observed in golf tournaments. We see that geometric scores approximate the optimal scores well in events where the distribution of athletes' performances is roughly uniform.