A majority-rule characterization with multiple extensions

When May's necessary and sufficient conditions for majority rule as a binary voting rule are extended in a natural way to decisions over more than two options, the resulting conditions are consistent with the Borda and Black voting rules, but not with a variety of other voting rules for more than two options. This paper presents an alternative set of necessary and sufficient conditions for binary majority rule, which permits the plurality, Condorcet and (simplified) Dodgson rules, as well as the Borda and Black rules, but not the Copeland or Nanson rules, to be classified as extensions of binary majority rule to decisions over more than two options.I am indebted to Amartya Sen and anonymous referees for helpful suggestions     

Rationalizations of Condorcet-consistent rules via distances of hamming type

In voting, the main idea of the distance rationalizability framework is to view the voters’ preferences as an imperfect approximation to some kind of consensus. This approach, which is deeply rooted in the social choice literature, allows one to define (“rationalize”) voting rules via a consensus class of elections and a distance: a candidate is said to be an election winner if she is ranked first in one of the nearest (with respect to the given distance) consensus elections. It is known that many classic voting rules can be distance-rationalized. In this article, we provide new results on distance rationalizability of several Condorcet-consistent voting rules. In particular, we distance-rationalize the Young rule and Maximin using distances similar to the Hamming distance. It has been claimed that the Young rule can be rationalized by the Condorcet consensus class and the Hamming distance; we show that this claim is incorrect and, in fact, this consensus class and distance yield a new rule, which has not been studied before. We prove that, similarly to the Young rule, this new rule has a computationally hard winner determination problem.     

Condorcet efficiencies under the maximal culture condition

The Condorcet winner in an election is a candidate that could defeat each other candidate in a series of pairwise majority rule elections. The Condorcet efficiency of a voting rule is the conditional probability that the voting rule will elect the Condorcet winner, given that such a winner exists. The study considers the Condorcet efficiency of basic voting rules under various assumptions about how voter preference rankings are obtained. Particular attention is given to situations in which the maximal culture condition is used as a basis for obtaining voter preferences. Received: 4 February 1998/Accepted: 13 April 1998     

How to choose a non-controversial list with k names

Barberà and Coelho (WP 264, CREA-Barcelona Economics, 2007) documented six screening rules associated with the rule of k names that are used by diferent institutions around the world. Here, we study whether these screening rules satisfy stability. A set is said to be a weak Condorcet set à la Gehrlein (Math Soc Sci 10:199–209) if no candidate in this set can be defeated by any candidate from outside the set on the basis of simple majority rule. We say that a screening rule is stable if it always selects a weak Condorcet set whenever such set exists. We show that all of the six procedures which are used in reality do violate stability if the voters do not act strategically. We then show that there are screening rules which satisfy stability. Finally, we provide two results that can explain the widespread use of unstable screening rules.     

On the selection of the same winner by all scoring rules

Different scoring rules can result in the selection of any of the k competing candidates, given the same preference profile, (Saari DG 2001, Chaotic elections! A mathematician looks at voting. American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I.). It is also possible that a candidate, and even a Condorcet winning candidate, cannot be selected by any scoring rule, (Saari DG 2000 Econ Theory 15:55–101). These findings are balanced by Saari’s result (Saari DG 1992 Soc Choice Welf 9(4):277–306) that specifies the necessary and sufficient condition for the selection of the same candidate by all scoring rules. This condition is, however, indirect. We provide a sufficient condition that is stated directly in terms of the preference profile; therefore, its testability does not require the verdict of any voting rule.     

A comparison of theoretical and empirical evaluations of the Borda Compromise

The Borda Compromise states that, if one has to choose among five popular voting rules that are not Condorcet consistent, one should always give preference to the Borda rule over the four other rules. We assess the theoretical as well as the empirical support for the Borda Compromise. We find that, despite considerable differences between the properties of the theoretical framework and the characteristics of two sets of observed ranking data, all three analyses provide considerable support for the Borda Compromise.     

The sensitivity of weight selection for scoring rules to profile proximity to single-peaked preferences

Niemi (Am Polit Sci Rev 63:488–497, 1969) proposed a simple measure of the cohesiveness of a group of n voters’ preferences that reflects the proximity of their preferences to single-peakedness. For three-candidate elections, this measure, k, reduces to the minimum number of voters who rank one of the candidates as being least preferred. The current study develops closed form representations for the conditional probability, PASW(n,IAC|k), that all weighted scoring rules will elect the Condorcet winner in an election, given a specified value of k. Results show a very strong relationship between PASW(n,IAC|k) and k, such that the determination of the voting rule to be used in an election becomes significantly less critical relative to the likelihood of electing the Condorcet winner as voters in a society have more structured preferences. As voters’ preferences become more unstructured as measured by their distance from single-peakedness, it becomes much more likely that different voting rules will select different winners.A preliminary version of this paper was presented at the European Public Choice Society Conference in Berlin, Germany, April 15–18, 2004.     

Robustness against inefficient manipulation

This paper identifies a family of scoring rules that are robust against coalitional manipulations that result in inefficient outcomes. We discuss the robustness of a number of Condorcet consistent and “point runoff” voting rules against such inefficient manipulation and classify voting rules according to their potential vulnerability to inefficient manipulation.     

Scoring rule voting games and dominance solvability

This article studies the dominance solvability (by iterated deletion of weakly dominated strategies) of general scoring rule voting games when there are three alternatives. The scoring rules we study include Plurality rule, Approval voting, Borda rule, and Relative Utilitarianism. We provide sufficient conditions for dominance solvability of general scoring rule voting games. The sufficient conditions that we provide for dominance solvability are in terms of one statistic of the game: sufficient agreement on the best alternative or on the worst alternative. We also show that the solutions coincide with the set of Condorcet Winners whenever the sufficient conditions for dominance solvability are satisfied. Approval Voting performs the best in terms of our criteria.     

Implementing generalized Condorcet social choice functions via backward induction

It is shown that solutions of generalized binary voting procedures are implementable via backward induction in sequential mechanisms. This implies that a rich class of generalized Condorcet Social Choice Functions including, for example, selections from the uncovered set, are implementable via backward induction. However, there are no implementable selections from the Copeland or Kramer Correspondences.We are grateful to an anonymous referee for valuable comments.     

On the Average Minimum Size of a Manipulating Coalition

We study the asymptotic average minimum manipulating coalition size as a characteristic of quality of a voting rule and show its serious drawback. We suggest using the asymptotic average threshold coalition size instead. We prove that, in large electorates, the asymptotic average threshold coalition size is maximised among all scoring rules by the Borda rule when the number m of alternatives is 3 or 4, and by -approval voting when m ≥ 5.     

On the likelihood of Condorcet's profiles

Consider a group of individuals who have to collectively choose an outcome from a finite set of feasible alternatives. A scoring or positional rule is an aggregation procedure where each voter awards a given number of points, w _j, to the alternative she ranks in j ^th position in her preference ordering; The outcome chosen is then the alternative that receives the highest number of points. A Condorcet or majority winner is a candidate who obtains more votes than her opponents in any pairwise comparison. Condorcet [4] showed that all positional rules fail to satisfy the majority criterion. Furthermore, he supplied a famous example where all the positional rules select simultaneously the same winner while the majority rule picks another one. Let P ^* be the probability of such events in three-candidate elections. We apply the techniques of Merlin et al. [17] to evaluate P ^* for a large population under the Impartial Culture condition. With these assumptions, such a paradox occurs in 1.808% of the cases. Received: 30 April 1999/Accepted: 14 September 2000     

Limiting distributions for continuous state Markov voting models

This paper proves the existence of a stationary distribution for a class of Markov voting models. We assume that alternatives to replace the current status quo arise probabilistically, with the probability distribution at time t+1 having support set equal to the set of alternatives that defeat, according to some voting rule, the current status quo at time t. When preferences are based on Euclidean distance, it is shown that for a wide class of voting rules, a limiting distribution exists. For the special case of majority rule, not only does a limiting distribution always exist, but we obtain bounds for the concentration of the limiting distribution around a centrally located set. The implications are that under Markov voting models, small deviations from the conditions for a core point will still leave the limiting distribution quite concentrated around a generalized median point. Even though the majority relation is totally cyclic in such situations, our results show that such chaos is not probabilistically significant.We acknowledge the support of NSF Grants #SOC79-21588, SES-8106215 and SES-8106212.     

Partially efficient voting by committees

On the separable preference domain, voting by committees is the only class of voting rules that satisfy strategy-proofness and unanimity, and dictatorial rules are the only ones that are strategy-proof and Pareto efficient. To fill the gap, we define a sequence of efficiency conditions. We prove that for strategy-proof rules on the separable preference domain, the various notions of efficiency reduce to three: unanimity, partial efficiency, and Pareto efficiency. We also show that on the domain, strategy-proofness and partial efficiency characterize the class of voting rules represented as simple games which are independent of objects, proper and strong. We call such rules voting by stable committee.The author is deeply indebted to William Thomson for many helpful discussions on an earlier draft. The current version is greatly benefited from detailed comments of an anonymous referee. Thanks are also due to Jeffrey Banks, Salvador Barberà, Marcus Berliant, Ryo-ichi Nagahisa, Takehiko Yamato, and participants in a seminar at Rochester in 1992, the 1992 Midwest Conference at Michigan State, and the 1993 Summer Meeting of Econometric Society at Boston University for conversations and suggestions.     

How the size of a coalition affects its chances to influence an election

Since voting rules are prototypes for many aggregation procedures, they also illuminate problems faced by economics and decision sciences. In this paper we are trying to answer the question: How large should a coalition be to have a chance to influence an election? We answer this question for all scoring rules and multistage elimination rules, under the Impartial Anonymous Culture assumption. We show that, when the number of participating agents n tends to infinity, the ratio of voting situations that can be influenced by a coalition of k voters to all voting situations is no greater than $D_{m} \frac{k}{n}Since voting rules are prototypes for many aggregation procedures, they also illuminate problems faced by economics and decision sciences. In this paper we are trying to answer the question: How large should a coalition be to have a chance to influence an election? We answer this question for all scoring rules and multistage elimination rules, under the Impartial Anonymous Culture assumption. We show that, when the number of participating agents n tends to infinity, the ratio of voting situations that can be influenced by a coalition of k voters to all voting situations is no greater than , where D _m is a constant which depends only on the number m of alternatives but not on k and n. Recent results on individual manipulability in three alternative elections show that this estimate is exact for k=1 and m=3.

Arkadii SlinkoEmail:

     

The Strong No Show Paradoxes are a common flaw in Condorcet voting correspondences

The No Show Paradox (there is a voter who would rather not vote) is known to affect every Condorcet voting function. This paper analyses two strong versions of this paradox in the context of Condorcet voting correspondences. The first says that there is a voter whose favorite candidate loses the election if she votes honestly, but gets elected if she abstains. The second says that there is a voter whose least preferred candidate gets elected if she votes honestly, but loses the election if she abstains. All Condorcet correspondences satisfying some weak domination properties are shown to be affected by these strong forms of the paradox. On the other hand, with the exception of the Simpson-Cramer Minmax and the Young rule, all the Condorcet correspondences that (to the best of our knowledge) are proposed in the literature suffer from these two paradoxes. Received: 30 November 1999/Accepted: 27 March 2000     

Modeling large electorates with Fourier series, with applications to Nash equilibria in proximity and directional models of spatial competition

 In this paper we introduce harmonic analysis (Fourier series) as a tool for characterizing the existence of Nash equilibria in two-dimensional spatial majority rule voting games with large electorates. We apply our methods both to traditional proximity models and to directional models. In the latter voters exhibit preferences over directions rather than over alternatives, per se. A directional equilibrium can be characterized as a Condorcet direction, in analogy to the Condorcet (majority) winner in the usual voting models, i.e., a direction which is preferred by a majority to (or at least is not beaten by) any other direction. We provide a parallel treatment of the total median condition for equilibrium under proximity voting and equilibrium conditions for directional voting that shows that the former result is in terms of a strict equality (a knife-edge result very unlikely to hold) while the latter is in terms of an inequality which is relatively easy to satisfy. For the Matthews [3] directional model and a variant of the Rabinowitz and Macdonald [7] directional model, we present a sufficiency condition for the existence of a Condorcet directional vector in terms of the odd-numbered components of the Fourier series representing the density distribution of the voter points. We interpret our theoretical results by looking at real-world voter distributions and direction fields among voter points derived from U.S. and Norwegian survey data. Received: 7 July 1995 / Accepted: 14 May 1996     

How frequently do different voting rules encounter voting paradoxes in three-candidate elections?

We estimate the frequencies with which ten voting anomalies (ties and nine voting paradoxes) occur under 14 voting rules, using a statistical model that simulates voting situations that follow the same distribution as voting situations in actual elections. Thus the frequencies that we estimate from our simulated data are likely to be very close to the frequencies that would be observed in actual three-candidate elections. We find that two Condorcet-consistent voting rules do, the Black rule and the Nanson rule, encounter most paradoxes and ties less frequently than the other rules do, especially in elections with few voters. The Bucklin rule, the Plurality rule, and the Anti-plurality rule tend to perform worse than the other eleven rules, especially when the number of voters becomes large.     

Enlargement and the balance of power: an experimental study

Theoretical analysis suggests that enlargement of a voting body may affect the balance of power between the original members even if their number of votes and the decision rule remain constant. Some of the existing voters may actually gain, a phenomenon known as the paradox of new members. We test for this effect using laboratory experiments. Participants propose and vote on how to divide a budget according to weighted majority voting rules, and we measure the voting power of a player by his average payoff in the experiment. By comparing voting power across voting bodies of varying size, we find empirical support for the paradox of new members.