  To aggregate rankings into a social ranking, one can use scoring systems such
as Plurality, Veto, and Borda. We distinguish three types of methods: ranking
by score, ranking by repeatedly choosing a winner that we delete and rank at
the top, and ranking by repeatedly choosing a loser that we delete and rank at
the bottom. The latter method captures the frequently studied voting rules
Single Transferable Vote (aka Instant Runoff Voting), Coombs, and Baldwin. In
an experimental analysis, we show that the three types of methods produce
different rankings in practice. We also provide evidence that sequentially
selecting winners is most suitable to detect the "true" ranking of candidates.
For different rules in our classes, we then study the (parameterized)
computational complexity of deciding in which positions a given candidate can
appear in the chosen ranking. As part of our analysis, we also consider the
Winner Determination problem for STV, Coombs, and Baldwin and determine their
complexity when there are few voters or candidates.
