Characterizations of two power indices for voting games with r alternatives

In the first three sections of this paper we present a set of axioms which provide a characterization of an extension of the Banzhaf index to voting games with r alternatives, such as the United Nations Security Council where a nation can vote “yes”, “no”, or “abstain”. The fourth section presents a set of axioms which characterizes a power index based on winning sets instead of pivot sets. Received: 4 April 2000/Accepted: 30 April 2001     

Sophisticated voting and equilibrium refinements under plurality rule

In this paper we show in the context of voting games with plurality rule that the “perfect” equilibrium concept does not appear restrictive enough, since, independently of preferences, it can exclude at most the election of only one candidate. Furthermore, some examples show that there are “perfect” equilibria that are not “proper”. However, also some “proper” outcome is eliminated by sophisticated voting, while Mertens' stable set fully satisfies such criterium, for generic plurality games. Moreover, we highlight a weakness of the simple sophisticated voting principle. Finally, we find that, for some games, sophisticated voting (and strategic stability) does not elect the Condorcet winner, neither it respects Duverger's law, even with a large number of voters. Received: 16 March 1999/Accepted: 25 September 1999     

Consistent judgement aggregation: the truth-functional case

Generalizing the celebrated “discursive dilemma”, we analyze judgement aggregation problems in which a group of agents independently votes on a set of complex propositions (the “conclusions”) and on a set of “premises” by which the conclusions are truth-functionally determined. We show that for conclusion- and premise-based aggregation rules to be mutually consistent, the aggregation must always be “oligarchic”, that is: unanimous within a subset of agents, and typically even be dictatorial. We characterize exactly when consistent non-dictatorial (or anonymous) aggregation rules exist, allowing for arbitrary conclusions and arbitrary interdependencies among premises.     

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.     

Endogenous Voting Agendas

Existence of a “simple” pure strategy subgame perfect equilibrium is established in a model of endogenous agenda formation and sophisticated voting; upper hemicontinuity of simple equilibrium outcomes is demonstrated; and connections to the set of undominated, or “core,” alternatives are examined. In one dimension with single-peaked preferences, the simple equilibrium outcome is essentially unique and lies in the core, providing a game-theoretic foundation for the median voter theorem in terms of endogenous agenda setting. Existence of equilibrium relies on a general characterization of sophisticated voting outcomes in the presence of “majority-ties,” rather than the standard tie-breaking convention in voting subgames in favor of the alternative proposed later. The model is illustrated in a three-agent distributive politics setting, and it is shown there that the standard tie-breaking convention leads to non-existence of equilibrium.     

Characterizing best–worst voting systems in the scoring context

An increasing body of theoretical and empirical work on discrete choice considers a choice design in which a person is asked to select both the best and the worst alternative in an available set of alternatives, in contrast to more traditional tasks, such as where the person is asked to: select the best alternative; select the worst alternative; rank the alternatives. Here we consider voting systems motivated by such “best–worst” choice; characterize a class of “best–worst” voting systems in terms of a set of axioms in the context of scoring rules; and discuss briefly possible extensions to approval–disapproval systems.     

Argumentation in Multi-issue Debates

An axiomatic modeling approach to multi-issue debates is proposed. A debate is viewed as a decision procedure consisting of two stages: (1) an “argumentation rule” determines what arguments are admissible for each party, given the “raw data”, depending on the issue or set of issues under discussion; (2) a “persuasion rule” determines the strength of the admissible arguments and selects the winning party. Persuasion rules are characterized for various alternative specifications of the argumentation rule. These characterizations capture rhetorical effects that we sometimes encounter in real-life multi-issue debates.     

Choosing subsets: a size-independent probabilistic model and the quest for a social welfare ordering

“Subset voting” denotes a choice situation where one fixed set of choice alternatives (candidates, products) is offered to a group of decision makers, each of whom is requested to pick a subset containing any number of alternatives. In the context of subset voting we merge three choice paradigms, “approval voting“ from political science, the “weak utility model” from mathematical psychology, and “social welfare orderings” from social choice theory. We use a probabilistic choice model proposed by Falmagne and Regenwetter (1996) built upon the notion that each voter has a personal ranking of the alternatives and chooses a subset at the top of the ranking. Using an extension of Sen's (1966) theorem about value restriction, we provide necessary and sufficient conditions for this empirically testable choice model to yield a social welfare ordering. Furthermore, we develop a method to compute Borda scores and Condorcet winners from subset choice probabilities. The technique is illustrated on an election of the Mathematical Association of America (Brams, 1988). Received: 18 August 1995 / Accepted: 13 February 1997     

On the equilibrium of voting games with abstention and several levels of approval

We study the core of “(j, k) simple games”, where voters choose one level of approval from among j possible levels, partitioning the society into j coalitions, and each possible partition facing k levels of approval in the output (Freixas and Zwicker in Soc Choice Welf 21:399–431, 2003). We consider the case of (j, 2) simple games, including voting games in which each voter may cast a “yes” or “no” vote, or abstain (j = 3). A necessary and sufficient condition for the non-emptiness of the core of such games is provided, with an important application to weighted symmetric (j, 2) simple games. These results generalize the literature, and provide a characterization of constitutions under which a society would allow a given number of candidates to compete for leadership without running the risk of political instability. We apply these results to well-known voting systems and social choice institutions including the relative majority rule, the two-thirds relative majority rule, the United States Senate, and the United Nations Security Council.     

The power of a collectivity to act in weighted voting games with many small voters

We analyze the propensity to approve a random proposal of a large committee that makes decisions by weighted voting. The approach is a generalized version of James Coleman’s “power of a collectivity to act”. Throughout the paper it is assumed that the voters are of two kinds: a fixed (possibly empty) set of “major” (big) voters with fixed weights, and an ever-increasing number of “minor” (small) voters, whose total weight is also fixed, but where each individual’s weight becomes negligible. As our main result, we obtain that asymptotically many minor voters act like a modification of the quota for the vote among major voters. The paper estimates the rate of convergence which turns out to be very high if the weight distribution among the small voters is not too skewed. The results obtained are illustrated by evaluating the decision rules for the Council of Ministers of the EU for various scenarios of EU enlargement. I wish to thank Matthew Braham, Sidartha Gordon, Maurice Koster, Moshé Machover, Guillermo Owen and two anonymous referees for helpful comments.     

Costly voting when both information and preferences differ: is turnout too high or too low?

We study a model of costly voting over two alternatives, where agents’ preferences are determined by both (i) a private preference in favour of one alternative e.g. candidates’ policies, and (ii) heterogeneous information in the form of noisy signals about a commonly valued state of the world e.g. candidate competence. We show that depending on the level of the personal bias (weight on private preference), voting is either according to private preferences or according to signals. When voting takes place according to private preferences, there is an unique equilibrium with inefficiently high turnout. In contrast, when voting takes place according to signals, turnout is locally too low. Multiple Pareto-ranked voting equilibria may exist and in particular, compulsory voting may Pareto dominate voluntary voting. Moreover, an increase in personal bias can cause turnout to rise or fall, and an increase in the accuracy of information may cause a switch to voting on the basis of signals and thus lower turnout, even though it increases welfare. This is a substantially revised version of Department of Economics University of Warwick Working Paper 670, “Information Aggregation, Costly Voting and Common Values”, January 2003. We would like to thank B. Dutta, M. Morelli, C. Perrroni, V. Bhaskar and seminar participants at Warwick, Nottingham and the ESRC Workshop in Game Theory for their comments. We would also like to thank the editor and an anonymous referee for their comments.     

Two-stage discrete aggregation: the Ostrogorski paradox and related phenomena

Motivated by certain paradoxa that have been discussed in the literature (Ostrogorski paradox), we prove an impossibility theorem for two-stage aggregation procedures for discrete data. We consider aggregation procedures of the following form: The whole population is partitioned into subgroups. First we aggregate over each subgroup, and in a second step we aggregate the subgroup aggregates to obtain a total aggregate. The data are either dichotomous (1 — 0; yes-no) or take values in a finite ordered set of possible attributes (e.g., exam grades A, B,...F). Examples are given by multistage voting procedures (indirect democracy, federalism), or by the forming of partial grades and overall grades in academic examinations and similar evaluation problems (sports competitions, consumer reports). It is well known from standard examples that the result of such a two-stage aggregation procedure depends, in general, not only on the distribution of attributes in the whole population, but also on how the attributes are distributed across the various subgroups (in other words: how the subgroups are defined). This dependence leads to certain paradoxa. The main result of the present paper is that these paradoxa are not due to the special aggregation rules employed in the examples, but are unavoidable in principle, provided the aggregators satisfy certain natural assumptions. More precisely: the only aggregator functions for which the result of a two-stage (a fortiori: multi-stage) aggregation does not depend on the partitioning are degenerate aggregators of the following form: there exists a partial order (dominance) on the set of possible attributes such that the aggregate over any collection of data is always equal to the supremum (w.r.t. dominance) of the attributes occurring in the data, regardless of the relative frequnencies of these occurrences. In the voting context, degeneracy corresponds to the unanimity principle. Our theorem is true for arbitrary partitionings of arbitrary (finite) sets and generalizes the results of Deb & Kelsey (for the matrix case with dichotomous variables and majority voting) to general two-stage aggregation procedures for attributes belonging to a finite ordered set. The general result is illustrated by some examples.This paper was completed during a visit to the University of Bielefeld. I am much indebted to the Faculty of Economics there for its hospitality; in particular I should like to thank Gerhard Schwödiauer and Walter Trockel for their support.     

The C1 topology on the space of smooth preference profiles

This paper defines a fine C ¹-topology for smooth preferences on a “policy space”, W, and shows that the set of convex preference profiles contains open sets in this topology.  It follows that if the dimension(W)≤v(?)−2 (where v(?) is the Nakamura number of the voting rule, ?), then the core of ? cannot be generically empty. For higher dimensions, an “extension” of the voting core, called the heart of ?, is proposed. The heart is a generalization of the “uncovered set”. It is shown to be non-empty and closed in general. On the C ¹-space of convex preference profiles, the heart is Paretian. Moreover, the heart correspondence is lower hemi-continuous and admits a continuous selection. Thus the heart converges to the core when the latter exists. Using this, an aggregator, compatible with ?, can be defined and shown to be continuous on the C ¹-space of smooth convex preference profiles. Received: 3 April 1995/Accepted: 8 April 1998     

Some chance for consensus: voting methods for which consensus is an equilibrium

We introduce the following basic voting method: voters submit both a “consensus” and a “fall-back” ballot. If all “consensus” ballots name the same option, it wins; otherwise, a randomly drawn “fall-back” ballot decides. If there is one potential consensus option that everyone prefers to the benchmark lottery which picks the favorite of a randomly drawn voter, then naming that option on all “consensus” ballots builds a very strong form of correlated equilibrium. Unlike common consensus procedures, ours is not biased toward the status quo and removes incentives to block consensus. Variants of the method allow for large groups, partial consensus, and choosing from several potential consensus options.     

Pairwise Strategy-Proofness and Self-Enforcing Manipulation

“Strategy-proofness” is one of the axioms that are most frequently used in the recent literature on social choice theory. It requires that by misrepresenting his preferences, no agent can manipulate the outcome of the social choice rule in his favor. The stronger requirement of “group strategy-proofness” is also often employed to obtain clear characterization results of social choice rules. Group strategy-proofness requires that no group of agents can manipulate the outcome in their favors. In this paper, we advocate “effective pairwise strategy-proofness.” It is the requirement that the social choice rule should be immune to unilateral manipulation and “self-enforcing” pairwise manipulation in the sense that no agent of a pair has the incentive to betray his partner. We apply the axiom of effective pairwise strategy-proofness to three types of economies: public good economy, pure exchange economy, and allotment economy. Although effective pairwise strategy-proofness is seemingly a much weaker axiom than group strategy-proofness, effective pairwise strategy-proofness characterizes social choice rules that are analyzed by using different axioms in the literature.     

Majority voting rules and the union success rate in national labor relations board representation elections

This paper simulates how the union success rate in representation elections would be affected if the NLRB reverted from its current simple-majority voting rule to its original majority-in-unit voting rule. Such a rule change would have altered 21 percent of decertification and 16 percent of certification victories over the period 1977–81, resulting in the loss of 180,400 actual or potential bargaining unit members for the union movement. Abstentions play an important role in election outcomes. Under the present voting rule unions have no clear advantage to “get out the vote” in decertification elections, but a clear disadvantage in certification elections. Under a majority-in-unit rule unions hold an advantage when they “get out the vote” in all representation elections. I would like to thank Mike Bognanno, Jim Dworkin, Paul Schumann, two reviewers, and the editor for helpful comments and David Wilson for excellent research assistance. I would also like to thank the NLRB for providing the election data tape.     

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.     

What’s so special about Euclidean distance?

In this paper, we provide an application-oriented characterization of a class of distance functions monotonically related to the Euclidean distance in terms of some general properties of distance functions between real-valued vectors. Our analysis hinges upon two fundamental properties of distance functions that we call “value-sensitivity” and “order-sensitivity”. We show how these two general properties, combined with natural monotonicity considerations, lead to characterization results that single out several versions of Euclidean distance from the wide class of separable distance functions. We then discuss and motivate our results in two different and apparently unrelated application areas—mobility measurement and spatial voting theory—and propose our characterization as a test for deciding whether Euclidean distance (or some suitable variant) should be used in your favourite application context. We would like to thank an editor and especially two anonymous referees for very useful comments which helped us to improve the paper substantially.     

Changes that cause changes

Beyond determining whether procedures can be manipulated, the real goal for any analysis of “strategic behavior” is to identify all settings where and when this can be done, who can do it, and what they should do. By applying the geometric approach of Saari [7, 8] to the Kemeny's Rule (KR), we demonstrate how surprisingly simple this analysis can be, we identify all three candidate KR strategic behavior, and we show how an almost identical analysis answers most other multiple profile concerns (e.g., the abstention paradox and when voters just make errors). We also introduce new measures, which can be used with any procedure, to compare strategic and other behavior involving “changes.” These measures help to identify settings where it may be more important to worry about honest mistakes than strategic voting. Received: 16 April 1999/Accepted: 29 September 1999