IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jothpo/v33y2021i4p475-524.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Axioms for defeat in democratic elections

Author

Listed:
  • Wesley H. Holliday
  • Eric Pacuit

Abstract

We propose six axioms concerning when one candidate should defeat another in a democratic election involving two or more candidates. Five of the axioms are widely satisfied by known voting procedures. The sixth axiom is a weakening of Kenneth Arrow’s famous condition of the Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives (IIA). We call this weakening Coherent IIA. We prove that the five axioms plus Coherent IIA single out a method of determining defeats studied in our recent work: Split Cycle. In particular, Split Cycle provides the most resolute definition of defeat among any satisfying the six axioms for democratic defeat. In addition, we analyze how Split Cycle escapes Arrow’s impossibility theorem and related impossibility results.

Suggested Citation

  • Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit, 2021. "Axioms for defeat in democratic elections," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 33(4), pages 475-524, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jothpo:v:33:y:2021:i:4:p:475-524
    DOI: 10.1177/09516298211043236
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09516298211043236
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/09516298211043236?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. Shmuel Nitzan & Ariel Rubinstein, 1981. "A further characterization of Borda ranking method," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 153-158, January.
    2. Dan S. Felsenthal & Hannu Nurmi, 2016. "Two types of participation failure under nine voting methods in variable electorates," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 168(1), pages 115-135, July.
    3. Patty,John W. & Penn,Elizabeth Maggie, 2014. "Social Choice and Legitimacy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521191012.
    4. Steven J. Brams & William V. Gehrlein & Fred S. Roberts (ed.), 2009. "The Mathematics of Preference, Choice and Order," Studies in Choice and Welfare, Springer, number 978-3-540-79128-7, December.
    5. Campbell, Donald E. & Kelly, Jerry S., 2000. "Weak independence and veto power," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 183-189, February.
    6. Ray, Paramesh, 1973. "Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(5), pages 987-991, September.
    7. 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.
    8. Gaertner,Wulf, 2006. "Domain Conditions in Social Choice Theory," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521028745.
    9. Kramer, Gerald H., 1977. "A dynamical model of political equilibrium," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 310-334, December.
    10. Kurrild-Klitgaard, Peter, 2018. "Trump, Condorcet and Borda: Voting paradoxes in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 29-35.
    11. José García-Lapresta & A. Marley & Miguel Martínez-Panero, 2010. "Characterizing best–worst voting systems in the scoring context," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 34(3), pages 487-496, March.
    12. De Donder, Philippe & Le Breton, Michel & Truchon, Michel, 2000. "Choosing from a weighted tournament1," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 85-109, July.
    13. Steven J. Brams & M. Remzi Sanver, 2009. "Voting Systems that Combine Approval and Preference," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Steven J. Brams & William V. Gehrlein & Fred S. Roberts (ed.), The Mathematics of Preference, Choice and Order, pages 215-237, Springer.
    14. Smith, John H, 1973. "Aggregation of Preferences with Variable Electorate," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(6), pages 1027-1041, November.
    15. Sen, Amartya, 1993. "Internal Consistency of Choice," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 61(3), pages 495-521, May.
    16. Mehdi Feizi & Rasoul Ramezanian & Saeed Malek Sadati, 2020. "Borda paradox in the 2017 Iranian presidential election: empirical evidence from opinion polls," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 101-113, June.
    17. Paul B. Simpson, 1969. "On Defining Areas of Voter Choice: Professor Tullock on Stable Voting," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 83(3), pages 478-490.
    18. Jac C. Heckelman & Robi Ragan, 2021. "Symmetric Scoring Rules And A New Characterization Of The Borda Count," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(1), pages 287-299, January.
    19. Markus Schulze, 2011. "A new monotonic, clone-independent, reversal symmetric, and condorcet-consistent single-winner election method," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 36(2), pages 267-303, February.
    20. 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.
    21. Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit, 2021. "Measuring Violations of Positive Involvement in Voting," Papers 2106.11502, arXiv.org.
    22. Bhaskar Dutta & Jean-Francois Laslier, 1999. "Comparison functions and choice correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 16(4), pages 513-532.
    23. Blau, Julian H & Deb, Rajat, 1977. "Social Decision Functions and the Veto," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(4), pages 871-879, May.
    24. Adrian Deemen, 2014. "On the empirical relevance of Condorcet’s paradox," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 311-330, March.
    25. Sean Ingham, 2019. "Why Arrow’s theorem matters for political theory even if preference cycles never occur," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 179(1), pages 97-111, April.
    26. Campbell, Donald E. & Kelly, Jerry S., 2002. "Impossibility theorems in the arrovian framework," 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 1, pages 35-94, Elsevier.
    27. Llamazares, Bonifacio, 2006. "The forgotten decision rules: Majority rules based on difference of votes," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 311-326, May.
    28. Asan, Goksel & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2002. "Another characterization of the majority rule," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 409-413, May.
    29. Patty,John W. & Penn,Elizabeth Maggie, 2014. "Social Choice and Legitimacy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521138338.
    30. Dan S. Felsenthal & Hannu Nurmi, 2017. "Monotonicity Failures Afflicting Procedures for Electing a Single Candidate," SpringerBriefs in Economics, Springer, number 978-3-319-51061-3, October.
    31. Amartya K. Sen, 1971. "Choice Functions and Revealed Preference," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 38(3), pages 307-317.
    32. McLean, Iain, 1995. "Independence of irrelevant alternatives before Arrow," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 107-126, October.
    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. Harrison-Trainor, Matthew, 2022. "An analysis of random elections with large numbers of voters," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 68-84.
    2. Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit, 2023. "Stable Voting," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 421-433, September.

    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. Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit, 2020. "Axioms for Defeat in Democratic Elections," Papers 2008.08451, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2023.
    2. Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit, 2023. "Split Cycle: a new Condorcet-consistent voting method independent of clones and immune to spoilers," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 197(1), pages 1-62, October.
    3. Harrison-Trainor, Matthew, 2022. "An analysis of random elections with large numbers of voters," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 68-84.
    4. Wesley H. Holliday & Chase Norman & Eric Pacuit & Saam Zahedian, 2022. "Impossibility theorems involving weakenings of expansion consistency and resoluteness in voting," Papers 2208.06907, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2023.
    5. Wesley H. Holliday, 2024. "An impossibility theorem concerning positive involvement in voting," Papers 2401.05657, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2024.
    6. Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit, 2020. "Split Cycle: A New Condorcet Consistent Voting Method Independent of Clones and Immune to Spoilers," Papers 2004.02350, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2023.
    7. Matthew Harrison-Trainor, 2020. "An Analysis of Random Elections with Large Numbers of Voters," Papers 2009.02979, arXiv.org.
    8. Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit, 2021. "Measuring Violations of Positive Involvement in Voting," Papers 2106.11502, arXiv.org.
    9. Martin, Mathieu & Merlin, Vincent, 2002. "The stability set as a social choice correspondence," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 91-113, September.
    10. John W. Patty & Elizabeth Maggie Penn, 2019. "A defense of Arrow’s independence of irrelevant alternatives," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 179(1), pages 145-164, April.
    11. Wesley H. Holliday & Mikayla Kelley, 2021. "Escaping Arrow's Theorem: The Advantage-Standard Model," Papers 2108.01134, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2022.
    12. Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit, 2023. "An extension of May's Theorem to three alternatives: axiomatizing Minimax voting," Papers 2312.14256, arXiv.org.
    13. Felix Brandt & Chris Dong, 2022. "On Locally Rationalizable Social Choice Functions," Papers 2204.05062, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2024.
    14. Brandt, Felix & Harrenstein, Paul, 2011. "Set-rationalizable choice and self-stability," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 146(4), pages 1721-1731, July.
    15. Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit, 2020. "Arrow’s decisive coalitions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 54(2), pages 463-505, March.
    16. Richard B. Darlington, 2023. "The case for minimax-TD," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 410-420, September.
    17. Green-Armytage, James, 2011. "Strategic voting and nomination," MPRA Paper 32200, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. 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.
    19. Susumu Cato, 2014. "Independence of irrelevant alternatives revisited," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 76(4), pages 511-527, April.
    20. Yifeng Ding & Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit, 2022. "An Axiomatic Characterization of Split Cycle," Papers 2210.12503, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2023.

    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:33:y:2021:i:4:p:475-524. 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.