Score contribution per author:
α: calibrated so average coauthorship-adjusted count equals average raw count
We conduct an experiment to investigate (i) whether rotation in voting improves a committee's performance, and (ii) the extent to which rotation critically influences collective and individual welfare. The experiment is based on the idea that voters have to trade-off between individual and common interests. Our findings indicate that the choice of rotation scheme has important consequences: it ‘pays’ to be allowed to vote, as voting committee members earn significantly more than non-voting members. Hence, rotation is not neutral. We also find that smaller committees decide faster and reach a deadlock less often. This reduces reported frustration among committee members.