Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methods require stakeholder preference elicitation, but standard approaches like Swing weight elicitation can be time-consuming and cognitively demanding for practical applications. This study investigated whether fast preference elicitation methods—direct ranking and rating of objectives—can effectively substitute for rigorous Swing weight elicitation in real-world public decision-making contexts. Data were collected from three case studies involving flood early warning system development in West Africa and wastewater management transitions in two Swiss rural communities. Individual stakeholder preferences for objectives were elicited through ranking, rating, and Swing weight methods across multiple workshops. Consistency between ranking and rating was high for most stakeholders (median γ-values around -0.9). Weights derived from objectives ranking correlated better with Swing weights than rating weights, particularly in the largest case study. When aggregated across stakeholders, fast elicitation methods implemented in MCDA produced nearly identical rankings of alternatives compared to Swing weights (Kendall's τ > 0.84), with no rank reversals in top-5 alternatives between weights derived from objectives ranking and Swing. However, holistic, direct ranking of alternatives showed poor correlation with MCDA-calculated rankings (τ < 0.5), supporting value-focused thinking principles. These findings demonstrate that fast ranking of objectives can approximate Swing weight elicitation outcomes while significantly reducing time and cognitive burden, offering a practical approach for consensus-seeking in resource-constrained public decision processes.