IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/miceco/v1y2013i1p1-22.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consensus and the Act of Voting

Author

Listed:
  • J.C.R. Alcantud
  • R. de Andrés Calle
  • J.M. Cascón

Abstract

In this article we are concerned with assessing the cohesiveness of a society whose individual preferences are known. We analyse the axiomatic properties of a general proposal to measure aggregate satisfaction in terms of coherence of the expressed opinions, that relies on the consensus with reference to a select social preference. The formal concept of referenced consensus measures that we introduce permits to produce a numerical social evaluation from purely ordinal individual information. A referenced consensus measure can be specialized via two ways: the specification of the representative agent, or from a practical point of view, the choice of a voting mechanism; and the measure of agreement between profiles of orderings and individual orderings. Introducing a fictitious agent, or the result of the act of voting, as a reference is fit for the common case of actual social choices. We carry out a descriptive analysis of the formal properties of referenced consensus measures with an emphasis on two relevant cases whose explicit constructions are detailed.

Suggested Citation

  • J.C.R. Alcantud & R. de Andrés Calle & J.M. Cascón, 2013. "Consensus and the Act of Voting," Studies in Microeconomics, , vol. 1(1), pages 1-22, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:miceco:v:1:y:2013:i:1:p:1-22
    DOI: 10.1177/2321022213488817
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2321022213488817
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2321022213488817?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. Jorge Alcalde-Unzu & Marc Vorsatz, 2016. "Do we agree? Measuring the cohesiveness of preferences," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(2), pages 313-339, February.
    2. Jorge Alcalde-Unzu & Marc Vorsatz, 2008. "The Measurement of Consensus: An Axiomatic Analysis," Working Papers 2008-28, FEDEA.
    3. Wade D. Cook & Lawrence M. Seiford, 1982. "On the Borda-Kendall Consensus Method for Priority Ranking Problems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(6), pages 621-637, June.
    4. Wade D. Cook & Lawrence M. Seiford, 1978. "Priority Ranking and Consensus Formation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(16), pages 1721-1732, December.
    5. Vincent R. Merlin & Donald G. Saari, "undated". "The Copeland Method I; Relationships and the Dictionary," Discussion Papers 1111, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    6. Nick Baigent, 1989. "Some Further Remarks on Preference Proximity," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 104(1), pages 191-193.
    7. Tommi Meskanen & Hannu Nurmi, 2006. "Distance from Consensus: A Theme and Variations," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Bruno Simeone & Friedrich Pukelsheim (ed.), Mathematics and Democracy, pages 117-132, Springer.
    8. Shmuel Nitzan, 1989. "More on the Preservation of Preference Proximity and Anonymous Social Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 104(1), pages 187-190.
    9. Nick Baigent, 1987. "Preference Proximity and Anonymous Social Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 102(1), pages 161-169.
    10. Michel Grabisch & Jean-Luc Marichal & Radko Mesiar & Endre Pap, 2009. "Aggregation functions," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00445120, HAL.
    11. Jean-François Laslier & M. Remzi Sanver, 2010. "Introduction to the Handbook on Approval Voting," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Jean-François Laslier & M. Remzi Sanver (ed.), Handbook on Approval Voting, chapter 0, pages 1-12, Springer.
    12. Christian Klamler, 2005. "The Copeland rule and Condorcet’s principle," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 25(3), pages 745-749, April.
    13. Baldiga, Katherine A. & Green, Jerry R., 2011. "Assent-maximizing social choice," Scholarly Articles 33927874, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    14. McMorris, F.R. & Powers, Robert C., 2009. "Consensus rules based on decisive families: The case of hierarchies," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 333-338, May.
    15. Donald G. Saari & Vincent R. Merlin, 1996. "The Copeland method (*)," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 8(1), pages 51-76.
    16. Christian Klamler, 2008. "A distance measure for choice functions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 30(3), pages 419-425, April.
    17. Jean-François Laslier & M. Remzi Sanver (ed.), 2010. "Handbook on Approval Voting," Studies in Choice and Welfare, Springer, number 978-3-642-02839-7, December.
    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. Jorge Alcalde-Unzu & Marc Vorsatz, 2013. "Measuring the cohesiveness of preferences: an axiomatic analysis," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 41(4), pages 965-988, October.
    2. Lauwers, Luc, 2000. "Topological social choice," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 1-39, July.
    3. Cascón, J.M. & González-Arteaga, T. & de Andrés Calle, R., 2019. "Reaching social consensus family budgets: The Spanish case," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 28-41.
    4. Jorge Alcalde-Unzu & Marc Vorsatz, 2008. "The Measurement of Consensus: An Axiomatic Analysis," Working Papers 2008-28, FEDEA.
    5. Edith Elkind & Piotr Faliszewski & Arkadii Slinko, 2015. "Distance rationalization of voting rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(2), pages 345-377, September.
    6. José Carlos R., Alcantud & Rocío, de Andrés & José Manuel, Cascón, 2011. "Measurement of consensus with a reference," MPRA Paper 32155, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Jorge Alcalde-Unzu & Marc Vorsatz, 2016. "Do we agree? Measuring the cohesiveness of preferences," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(2), pages 313-339, February.
    8. I. Contreras, 2012. "Ordered Weighted Disagreement Functions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 345-361, May.
    9. Daniel Eckert & Christian Klamler & Johann Mitlöhner & Christian Schlötterer, 2006. "A distance-based comparison of basic voting rules," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 14(4), pages 377-386, December.
    10. Le Breton, Michel & Truchon, Michel, 1997. "A Borda measure for social choice functions," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 249-272, October.
    11. Channing Arndt & Azhar M. Hussain & Vincenzo Salvucci & Finn Tarp & Lars Peter Østerdal, 2016. "Poverty Mapping Based on First‐Order Dominance with an Example from Mozambique," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(1), pages 3-21, January.
    12. Muhammad Mahajne & Shmuel Nitzan & Oscar Volij, 2015. "Level $$r$$ r consensus and stable social choice," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(4), pages 805-817, December.
    13. Channing Arndt & Azhar M. Hussain & Vincenzo Salvucci & Finn Tarp & Lars Peter Østerdal, 2016. "Poverty Mapping Based on First‐Order Dominance with an Example from Mozambique," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(1), pages 3-21, January.
    14. Tanguiane, Andranick S., 2022. "Analysis of the 2021 Bundestag elections. 4/4. The third vote application," Working Paper Series in Economics 154, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    15. Antoinette Baujard & Frédéric Gavrel & Herrade Igersheim & Jean-François Laslier & Isabelle Lebon, 2013. "Who’s Favored by Evaluative Voting ? An Experiment Conducted During the 2012 French Presidential Election," Working Papers of BETA 2013-08, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    16. Andranik Tangian, 2021. "MCDM Application of the Third Vote," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 775-787, August.
    17. Kelin Luo & Yinfeng Xu & Bowen Zhang & Huili Zhang, 2018. "Creating an acceptable consensus ranking for group decision making," Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 307-328, July.
    18. Muhammad Mahajne & Shmuel Nitzan & Oscar Volij, 2013. "LEVEL r CONSENSUS AND STABLE SOCIAL CHOICE," Working Papers 1305, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Department of Economics.
    19. Josep Colomer, 2013. "Ramon Llull: from ‘Ars electionis’ to social choice theory," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(2), pages 317-328, February.
    20. Hanna Bury & Dariusz Wagner, 2009. "Group judgement with ties. A position-based approach," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Technology, Institute of Organization and Management, vol. 4, pages 9-26.

    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:miceco:v:1:y:2013:i:1:p:1-22. 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.