A NONEQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS OF UNANIMITY RULE, MAJORITY RULE, AND PARETO

It is widely held that in the absence of transaction costs unanimity rule is more effective at producing Pareto improvements and Pareto optimal outcomes than majority rule. We compare unanimity rule and majority rule in their ability to adhere to the Pareto criterion and to select Pareto-optimal alternatives using a single-dimensional spatial voting model without rational proposals. This produces two interesting results. First, if proposals are random, then majority rule is almost always more adept at selecting Pareto-optimal alternatives than unanimity rule. Second, if individuals propose their ideal points, then majority rule selects Pareto-optimal outcomes at least as well as unanimity rule. These results contrast with equilibrium analyses, which typically show that unanimity rule is the best voting procedure for maintaining Pareto optimality. (JEL D7 , C61 )     

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     

Condorcet's jury theorem in light of de Finetti's theorem

This paper generalizes Condorcet's jury theorem to the case of symmetrically dependent votes with the help of de Finetti's theorem. Thus, the paper relaxes Condorcet's assumption of independent voting while preserving his main result: In jury-type situations a majority of voters is more likely than any single voter to choose the better of two alternatives.I am indebted to Professors Steven Brams, Arnold Buss, Gary Miller and Norman Schofield for their comments and questions. This paper is supported, in part, by a grant from the National Science Foundation (SES-9210800).     

Equilibrium agenda formation

We develop a definition of equilibrium for agenda formation in general voting settings. The definition is independent of any protocol. We show that the set of equilibrium outcomes for any Pareto efficient voting rule is uniquely determined, and in fact coincides with that of the outcomes generated by considering all full agendas. Under voting by successive elimination (or amendment), the set of equilibrium outcomes corresponds with the Banks set. We also examine the implications in several specific settings and show that studying equilibrium agendas can lead to sharp predictions, in contrast with well-known chaos theorems.Financial support under NSF grant SES-9986190 and an RTDF grant from the University of Warwick are gratefully acknowledged. We thank John Duggan, Martin Osborne, and an anonymous referee for valuable suggestions, and participants at the Sixth International Meeting of the Society for Social Choice and Welfare for helpful comments.     

SYMMETRIC SCORING RULES AND A NEW CHARACTERIZATION OF THE BORDA COUNT

Young developed a classic axiomatization of the Borda rule almost 50 years ago. He proved it is the only voting rule satisfying the normative properties of decisiveness, neutrality, reinforcement, faithfulness and cancellation. Often overlooked is that the uniqueness of Borda applies only to variable populations. We present a different set of properties which only Borda satisfies when both the set of voters and the set of alternatives can vary. It is also shown Borda is the only scoring rule which will satisfy all of the new properties when the number of voters stays fixed. (JEL D71, D02, H00)     

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.     

Aggregation of coarse preferences

We consider weak preference orderings over a set A _n of n alternatives. An individual preference is of refinement?≤n if it first partitions A _n into ? subsets of `tied' alternatives, and then ranks these subsets within a linear ordering. When ?<n, preferences are coarse. It is shown that, if the refinement of preferences does not exceed ?, a super majority rule (within non-abstaining voters) with rate 1− 1/? is necessary and sufficient to rule out Condorcet cycles of any length. It is argued moreover how the coarser the individual preferences, (1) the smaller the rate of super majority necessary to rule out cycles `in probability'; (2) the more probable the pairwise comparisons of alternatives, for any given super majority rule. Received: 29 June 1999/Accepted: 25 February 2000     

Single-Crossing, Strategic Voting and the Median Choice Rule

This paper studies the strategic foundation of the Representative Voter Theorem (Rothstein in: Pub Choice 72:193–212, 1991), also called the “second version” of the Median Voter Theorem. As a by-product, it also considers the existence of strategy-proof social choice functions over the domain of single-crossing preferences. The main result shows that single-crossing constitutes a domain restriction over the real line that allows not only majority voting equilibria, but also non-manipulable choice rules. In particular, this is true for the median rule, which is found to be group strategic-proof over the full set of alternatives and over every nonempty subset. In addition, the paper also examines the relation between single-crossing and order-restriction. And it uses this relation together with the strategy-proofness of the median rule to prove that the outcome predicted by the Representative Voter Theorem can be implemented in dominant strategies through a simple mechanism. This mechanism is a two-stage voting procedure in which, first, individuals select a representative among themselves, and then the winner chooses a policy to be implemented by the planner.     

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.     

Choosing from a large tournament

A tournament can be viewed as a majority preference relation without ties on a set of alternatives. In this way, voting rules based on majority comparisons are equivalent to methods of choosing from a tournament. We consider the size of several of these tournament solutions in tournaments with a large but finite number of alternatives. Our main result is that with probability approaching one, the top cycle set, the uncovered set, and the Banks set are equal to the entire set of alternatives in a randomly chosen large tournament. That is to say, each of these tournament solutions almost never rules out any of the alternatives under consideration. We also discuss some implications and limitations of this result.     

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     

Subgame perfect implementation of voting rules via randomized mechanisms

We characterize completely ordinal and onto choice rules that are subgame perfect of Nash equilibrium (SPE) implementable via randomized mechanisms under strict preferences. The characterization is very operationalizable, and allows us to analyse SPE implementability of voting rules. We show that no scoring rule is SPE implementable. However, the top-cycle and the uncovered correspondences as well as plurality with runoff and any strongly Condorcet consistent voting rule can be SPE implemented. Therefore our results are favourable to majority based voting rules over scoring rules. Nevertheless, we show that many interesting Condorcet consistent but not strongly Condorcet consistent rules, such as the Copeland rule, the Kramer rule and the Simpson rule, cannot be SPE implemented.     

Free triples,large indifference classes and the majority rule

We study classes of voting situations where agents may exhibit a systematic inability to distinguish between the elements of certain sets of alternatives. These sets of alternatives may differ from voter to voter, thus resulting in personalized families of preferences. We study the properties of the majority relation when defined on restricted domains that are the cartesian product of preference families, each one reflecting the corresponding agent’s objective indifferences, and otherwise allowing for all possible (strict) preference relations among alternatives. We present necessary and sufficient conditions on the preference domains of this type, guaranteeing that majority rule is quasi-transitive and thus the existence of Condorcet winners at any profile in the domain, and for any finite subset of alternatives. Finally, we compare our proposed restrictions with others in the literature, to conclude that they are independent of any previously discussed domain restriction.     

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.     

Recognizing majority-rule equilibrium in spatial voting games

It is provably difficult (NP-complete) to determine whether a given point can be defeated in a majority-rule spatial voting game. Nevertheless, one can easily generate a point with the property that if any point cannot be defeated, then this point cannot be defeated. Our results suggest that majority-rule equilibrium can exist as a purely practical matter: when the number of voters and the dimension of the policy space are both large, it can be too difficult to find an alternative to defeat the status quo. It is also computationally difficult to determine the radius of the yolk or the Nakamura number of a weighted voting game.We are grateful to Norman Schofield and an anonymous referee for many helpful suggestions.The first author was supported in part by a Presidential Young Investigator Award from the National Science Foundation (ECS-8351313) and by the Office of Naval Research (N00014-85-K-0147). The third author was supported in part by a Presendential Young Investigator Award from the National Science Foundation (ECS-8451032).     

Probabilistic Borda rule voting

An alternative voting system, referred to as probabilistic Borda rule, is developed and analyzed. The winning alternative under this system is chosen by lottery where the weights are determined from each alternatives Borda score relative to all Borda points possible. Advantages of the lottery include the elimination of strategic voting on the set of alternatives under consideration and breaking the tyranny of majority coalitions. Disadvantages include an increased incentive for strategic introduction of new alternatives to alter the lottery weights, and the possible selection of a Condorcet loser. Normative axiomatic properties of the system are also considered. It is shown this system satisfies the axiomatic properties of the standard Borda procedure in a probabilistic fashion.I thank Nic Tideman and Andrew Yates for helpful comments and especially appreciate detailed criticism from Keith Dougherty which greatly improved the exposition of the text. In addition, Don Saari, in his role as editor, suggested a number of clarifications and an important extension for which I am grateful. I accept full responsibility for any remaining shortcomings.     

THE IMPACT OF ENTITLEMENTS AND EQUITY ON COOPERATIVE BARGAINING: AN EXPERIMENT

In some bargaining situations—for example, collaborative policy making and compulsory arbitration—a third party imposes a backstop position that differs from the status quo. Axiomatic models of cooperative bargaining presume that the status quo in such cases will have no effect on the negotiated outcome, especially if it is Pareto inferior to the backstop. Recent literatures on equity and entitlement, however, suggest that the status quo may establish a focal point that acts as an “anchor” in current negotiations, affecting any ultimate agreement. In a two‐party, two‐attribute experiment, in which subjects jointly select from up to 200 options, we find evidence (1) that the status quo matters, perhaps because of “entitlement effects” and (2) that parties prefer egalitarian outcomes to the Nash bargain. (JEL C92, D74, H44, Q58)     

Opting out of publicly provided services: A majority voting result

Our objective in this paper is to examine majority voting in an environment where both public and private alternatives coexist. We construct a model in which households are differentiated by income and have the option of choosing between publicly provided services and private services. Publicly provided services are financed through income tax revenues and made available to all citizens at zero price. Majority voting determines the tax rate. Even though preferences over tax rates are not single peaked, we provide conditions under which a majority voting equilibrium exists. We illustrate our existence result with CES preferences and a Dagum income distribution. Received: 21 December 1993 / Accepted: 2 September 1996     

The structure of coalitional power under probabilistic voting procedures

We consider probabilistic voting procedures which map each feasible set of alternatives and each utility profile to a social choice lottery over the feasible set. It is shown that if we impose: (i) a probabilistic collective rationality condition known as regularity; (ii) probabilistic counterpart of Arrow's independence of irrelevant alternatives and citizens' sovereignty; (iii) a probabilistic positive association condition called monotonicity; then the coalitional power structure under a probabilistic voting procedure is characterized by weak random dictatorship. Received: 1 March 1999/Accepted: 21 May 2001     

Political election on legal retirement age

In the context of the current debate surrounding the reform of pension systems, this paper analyzes the political economy of the legal retirement age. Using a life-cycle model in which individuals differ by age and by wage, we analyze the outcome of a majority voting process on the legal retirement age in a Pay-As-You-Go pension system. The results show that the older an individual is, the closer her optimal retirement age is to the status quo age. That is, the status quo retirement age acts as a magnet. Additionally, we find that the preferred legal retirement age of most of the working population increases when the pension system is more redistributive. We also observe a positive relationship between the preferred legal retirement age and the status quo age.