IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v168y2016i3d10.1007_s11127-016-0361-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Plurality, approval, or Borda? A nineteenth century dispute on voting rules

Author

Listed:
  • Eerik Lagerspetz

    (University of Turku)

Abstract

According to the oft-repeated story, the theory of social choice was invented by the eighteenth century French mathematicians: Borda. Condorcet, and Laplace. After their contributions, the subject is said to have fallen into oblivion. The aim of this article is to challenge this narrative by reviewing a nineteenth century discussion on the merits of different voting rules. In that discussion the social choice results had a central role. The participants in the heated dispute were both professors at the University of Helsinki: Lorenz Lindelöf (1827–1908) was the Professor of Mathematics, a noted mathematician and statistician, while Johan Wilhelm Snellman (1806–1881) was the Professor of Philosophy and the unofficial intellectual leader of the Finnish national movement. Many of the arguments used by them also appear in modern treatments of social choice theory. Such basic anomalies of social choice as the Borda paradox, the Condorcet paradox, path-dependence, and strategic voting figured in the discussion.

Suggested Citation

  • Eerik Lagerspetz, 2016. "Plurality, approval, or Borda? A nineteenth century dispute on voting rules," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 168(3), pages 265-277, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:168:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s11127-016-0361-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11127-016-0361-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11127-016-0361-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11127-016-0361-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eerik Lagerspetz, 2014. "Albert Heckscher on collective decision-making," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 159(3), pages 327-339, June.
    2. Barberà, Salvador & Coelho, Danilo, 2010. "On the rule of k names," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 44-61, September.
    3. Brams, Steven J. & Fishburn, Peter C., 2002. "Voting procedures," Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, in: K. J. Arrow & A. K. Sen & K. Suzumura (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 4, pages 173-236, Elsevier.
    4. Eerik Lagerspetz, 2016. "Social Choice and Democratic Values," Studies in Choice and Welfare, Springer, edition 1, number 978-3-319-23261-4, December.
    5. Eerik Lagerspetz, 1986. "Pufendorf on collective decisions," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 49(2), pages 179-182, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Beatrice Cherrier & Jean-Baptiste Fleury, 2017. "Economists’ interest in collective decision after World War II: a history," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 172(1), pages 23-44, July.
    2. Alessandro Morselli, 2021. "Individual decisions and collective choices in the history of economic thought," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 3, pages 77-96,97-11.
    3. Andreas Darmann & Julia Grundner & Christian Klamler, 2017. "Election outcomes under different ways to announce preferences: an analysis of the 2015 parliament election in the Austrian federal state of Styria," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 173(1), pages 201-216, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Núñez, Matías & Laslier, Jean-François, 2015. "Bargaining through Approval," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 63-73.
    2. Núñez, Matías & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2017. "Revisiting the connection between the no-show paradox and monotonicity," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 9-17.
    3. Iain McLean, 2015. "The strange history of social choice," Chapters, in: Jac C. Heckelman & Nicholas R. Miller (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Voting, chapter 2, pages 15-34, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. László Csató, 2023. "A comparative study of scoring systems by simulations," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 24(4), pages 526-545, May.
    5. Alessandro Morselli, 2021. "Individual decisions and collective choices in the history of economic thought," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 3, pages 77-96,97-11.
    6. Boniface Mbih & Sébastien Courtin & Issofa Moyouwou, 2010. "Susceptibility to coalitional strategic sponsoring," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 144(1), pages 133-151, July.
    7. Sebastien Courtin & Boniface Mbih & Issofa Moyouwou, 2009. "Susceptibility to coalitional strategic sponsoring The case of parliamentary agendas," Post-Print hal-00914855, HAL.
    8. Eerik Lagerspetz, 2014. "Albert Heckscher on collective decision-making," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 159(3), pages 327-339, June.
    9. Peleg, Bezalel & Peters, Hans, 2017. "Choosing k from m: Feasible elimination procedures reconsidered," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 254-261.
    10. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/3mdje1f65o8qrqpapnmrhon2vm is not listed on IDEAS
    11. 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.
    12. Aumann, Robert J., 2003. "Presidential address," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 2-14, October.
    13. Raphael Godefroy & Eduardo Perez‐Richet, 2013. "Choosing Choices: Agenda Selection With Uncertain Issues," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 81(1), pages 221-253, January.
    14. William Thomson, 2007. "Children Crying at Birthday Parties. Why?," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 31(3), pages 501-521, June.
    15. Richard F. Potthoff, 2022. "Radial Symmetry Does Not Preclude Condorcet Cycles If Different Voters Weight the Issues Differently," Economies, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-17, July.
    16. Darmann, Andreas, 2013. "How hard is it to tell which is a Condorcet committee?," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 282-292.
    17. Egor Ianovski & Mark C. Wilson, 2019. "Manipulability of consular election rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 52(2), pages 363-393, February.
    18. Gilat Levy & Ronnie Razin, 2009. "Gradualism in Dynamic Agenda Formation," STICERD - Theoretical Economics Paper Series 543, Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines, LSE.
    19. Wolitzky, Alexander, 2009. "Fully sincere voting," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 720-735, November.
    20. Julia Grundner, 2018. "Governance in Africa: Convergence or Divergence?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 38(1), pages 71-88.
    21. Athanasios Spyridakos & Denis Yannacopoulos, 2015. "Incorporating collective functions to multicriteria disaggregation–aggregation approaches for small group decision making," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 227(1), pages 119-136, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:168:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s11127-016-0361-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.