IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jothpo/v31y2019i1p46-65.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The superdominance relation, the positional winner, and more missing links between Borda and Condorcet

Author

Listed:
  • Raúl Pérez-Fernández

    (Department of Data Analysis and Mathematical Modelling, Ghent University, Belgium)

  • Bernard De Baets

    (Department of Data Analysis and Mathematical Modelling, Ghent University, Belgium)

Abstract

The field of social choice dates back to the eighteenth century, when Borda and Condorcet started a never-ending discussion about the use of either positional or pairwise information. Three centuries later, after countless axiomatic characterizations of voting rules, impossibility theorems and many other study subjects, researchers still debate whether positional information is really sensitive to manipulation or pairwise information disregards the transitivity of voters’ preferences. In a previous paper, we introduced the notions of supercovering relation and pairwise winner, which resulted in a meeting point for both points of view of the theory of social choice. In this paper, we continue this direction and propose the notions of superdominance relation and positional winner that will prove to be the alter egos of the supercovering relation and the pairwise winner when positional information (rather than pairwise information) is considered. Moreover, we analyse a new interesting choice set: the unsuperdominated set.

Suggested Citation

  • Raúl Pérez-Fernández & Bernard De Baets, 2019. "The superdominance relation, the positional winner, and more missing links between Borda and Condorcet," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 31(1), pages 46-65, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jothpo:v:31:y:2019:i:1:p:46-65
    DOI: 10.1177/0951629818809417
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0951629818809417
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0951629818809417?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. William Gehrlein & Peter Fishburn, 1976. "Condorcet's paradox and anonymous preference profiles," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 1-18, June.
    2. Raúl Pérez-Fernández & Bernard De Baets, 2017. "Recursive Monotonicity of the Scorix: Borda Meets Condorcet," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 793-813, July.
    3. Kuga, Kiyoshi & Nagatani, Hiroaki, 1974. "Voter Antagonism and the Paradox of Voting," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 42(6), pages 1045-1067, November.
    4. Inada, Ken-Ichi, 1969. "The Simple Majority Decision Rule," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 37(3), pages 490-506, July.
    5. Gehrlein, William V. & Lepelley, Dominique, 2001. "The Condorcet efficiency of Borda Rule with anonymous voters," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 39-50, January.
    6. Fishburn, Peter C., 1974. "Paradoxes of Voting," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 68(2), pages 537-546, June.
    7. Young, H. P., 1988. "Condorcet's Theory of Voting," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 82(4), pages 1231-1244, December.
    8. Smith, John H, 1973. "Aggregation of Preferences with Variable Electorate," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(6), pages 1027-1041, November.
    9. Dutta, Bhaskar, 1988. "Covering sets and a new condorcet choice correspondence," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 63-80, February.
    10. B. Fine & K. Fine, 1974. "Social Choice and Individual Rankings II," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 41(4), pages 459-475.
    11. Raúl Pérez-Fernández & Bernard De Baets, 2018. "The supercovering relation, the pairwise winner, and more missing links between Borda and Condorcet," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 50(2), pages 329-352, February.
    12. Stein, William E. & Mizzi, Philip J. & Pfaffenberger, Roger C., 1994. "A stochastic dominance analysis of ranked voting systems with scoring," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 78-85, April.
    13. Bonifacio Llamazares & Teresa Peña, 2015. "Positional Voting Systems Generated by Cumulative Standings Functions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(5), pages 777-801, September.
    14. I. Good, 1971. "A note on condorcet sets," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 97-101, March.
    15. Merlin, V. & Tataru, M. & Valognes, F., 2000. "On the probability that all decision rules select the same winner," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 183-207, March.
    16. B. Fine & K. Fine, 1974. "Social Choice and Individual Ranking I," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 41(3), pages 303-322.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Raúl Pérez-Fernández & Bernard De Baets, 2017. "Recursive Monotonicity of the Scorix: Borda Meets Condorcet," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 793-813, July.
    2. Raúl Pérez-Fernández & Bernard De Baets, 2018. "The supercovering relation, the pairwise winner, and more missing links between Borda and Condorcet," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 50(2), pages 329-352, February.
    3. Aleksei Y. Kondratev & Alexander S. Nesterov, 2020. "Measuring majority power and veto power of voting rules," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 183(1), pages 187-210, April.
    4. Barberà, Salvador & Bossert, Walter & Moreno-Ternero, Juan D., 2023. "Wine rankings and the Borda method," Journal of Wine Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(2), pages 122-138, May.
    5. D. Marc Kilgour & Jean-Charles Grégoire & Angèle M. Foley, 2022. "Weighted scoring elections: is Borda best?," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 58(2), pages 365-391, February.
    6. Brandt, Felix, 2011. "Minimal stable sets in tournaments," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 146(4), pages 1481-1499, July.
    7. Z. Emel Öztürk, 2020. "Consistency of scoring rules: a reinvestigation of composition-consistency," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 49(3), pages 801-831, September.
    8. Brandl, Florian & Peters, Dominik, 2022. "Approval voting under dichotomous preferences: A catalogue of characterizations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    9. Berghammer, Rudolf & Rusinowska, Agnieszka & de Swart, Harrie, 2013. "Computing tournament solutions using relation algebra and RelView," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 226(3), pages 636-645.
    10. McMorris, F.R. & Mulder, Henry Martyn & Novick, Beth & Powers, Robert C., 2021. "Majority rule for profiles of arbitrary length, with an emphasis on the consistency axiom," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 164-174.
    11. Walter Bossert & Kotaro Suzumura, 2020. "Positionalist voting rules: a general definition and axiomatic characterizations," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 55(1), pages 85-116, June.
    12. Sekiguchi, Yohei, 2012. "A characterization of the plurality rule," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 116(3), pages 330-332.
    13. William Gehrlein & Peter Fishburn, 1976. "Condorcet's paradox and anonymous preference profiles," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 1-18, June.
    14. Kamwa, Eric & Merlin, Vincent, 2015. "Scoring rules over subsets of alternatives: Consistency and paradoxes," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 130-138.
    15. Partha Dasgupta, 1989. "Well-Being: Foundations, and the Extent of its Realization in Poor Countries," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-1989-080, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    16. Yohei Sekiguchi, 2012. "A Characterization of the Plurality Rule," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-833, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
    17. repec:hal:wpaper:hal-00756696 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Bonifacio Llamazares, 2016. "Ranking Candidates Through Convex Sequences of Variable Weights," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 567-584, May.
    19. McIntee, Tomas J. & Saari, Donald G., 2017. "Likelihood of voting outcomes with generalized IAC probabilities," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-10.
    20. Aleksei Yu. Kondratev & Alexander S. Nesterov, 2018. "Measuring Majority Tyranny: Axiomatic Approach," HSE Working papers WP BRP 194/EC/2018, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    21. Subochev, Andrey & Aleskerov, Fuad & Pislyakov, Vladimir, 2018. "Ranking journals using social choice theory methods: A novel approach in bibliometrics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 416-429.

    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:sae:jothpo:v:31:y:2019:i:1:p:46-65. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.