Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

The probability of the paradox of voting: A computable solution

Contents:

Author Info

  • Gehrlein, William V.
  • Fishburn, Peter C.
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    No abstract is available for this item.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WJ3-4CYGGTV-1XT/2/8022724d475f5c34630c23459ed7ec09
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Journal of Economic Theory.

    Volume (Year): 13 (1976)
    Issue (Month): 1 (August)
    Pages: 14-25

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:eee:jetheo:v:13:y:1976:i:1:p:14-25

    Contact details of provider:
    Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622869

    Related research

    Keywords:

    References

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as in new window

    Cited by:
    1. Kurrild-Klitgaard, Peter, 2001. " An Empirical Example of the Condorcet Paradox of Voting in a Large Electorate," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 107(1-2), pages 135-45, April.
    2. Hervé Crès, 2000. "Aggregation of Coarse Preferences," Sciences Po publications 659/1998, Sciences Po.
    3. Raphael Gillett, 1980. "The comparative likelihood of an equivocal outcome under the plurality, Condorcet, and Borda voting procedures," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 483-491, January.
    4. Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, 2014. "Empirical social choice: an introduction," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 297-310, March.
    5. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/10286 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Peter Fishburn & William Gehrlein, 1980. "Social homogeneity and Condorcet's paradox," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 403-419, January.
    7. Eyal Baharad & Shmuel Nitzan, 2011. "Condorcet vs. Borda in light of a dual majoritarian approach," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(2), pages 151-162, August.
    8. Boniface Mbih & Sébastien Courtin & Issofa Moyouwou, 2010. "Susceptibility to coalitional strategic sponsoring," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 144(1), pages 133-151, July.
    9. Achill Schürmann, 2013. "Exploiting polyhedral symmetries in social choice," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 1097-1110, April.
    10. William Gehrlein, 2002. "Condorcet's paradox and the likelihood of its occurrence: different perspectives on balanced preferences ," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 171-199, March.
    11. Kurrild-Klitgaard, Peter, 2014. "Empirical social choice: An introduction," MPRA Paper 53323, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Sebastien Courtin & Boniface Mbih & Issofa Moyouwou, 2009. "Susceptibility to coalitional strategic sponsoring The case of parliamentary agendas," Post-Print hal-00914855, HAL.
    13. William Gehrlein, 2004. "Consistency in Measures of Social Homogeneity: A Connection with Proximity to Single Peaked Preferences," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 147-171, April.
    14. Hervé Crès, 2001. "Aggregation of coarse preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 507-525.
    15. Adrian Deemen, 2014. "On the empirical relevance of Condorcet’s paradox," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 311-330, March.
    16. Scott Feld & Bernard Grofman, 1986. "Research note Partial single-peakedness: An extension and clarification," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 51(1), pages 71-80, January.
    17. Shmuel Nitzan, 1985. "The vulnerability of point-voting schemes to preference variation and strategic manipulation," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 349-370, January.
    18. Balasko, Yves & Cres, Herve, 1997. "The Probability of Condorcet Cycles and Super Majority Rules," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 237-270, August.
    19. Boniface Mbih & Issofa Moyouwou & Abdoul Aziz Ndiaye, 2009. "Parliamentary voting rules and strategic candidacy," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 29(2), pages 1371-1379.
    20. Regenwetter, Michel & Marley, A. A. J. & Grofman, Bernard, 2002. "A general concept of majority rule," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 405-428, July.

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jetheo:v:13:y:1976:i:1:p:14-25. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.