IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v21y2012i3d10.1007_s10726-010-9191-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

No Show Paradox in Condorcet k-voting Procedures

Author

Listed:
  • Joaquín Pérez

    (Universidad de Alcalá)

  • José L. Jimeno

    (Universidad de Alcalá)

  • Estefanía García

    (Universidad de Alcalá)

Abstract

In this paper we extend the negative known results about No Show Paradox in Condorcet voting functions and correspondences to the contexts of k-functions and k-correspondences, in which the outcome of the voting process is a unique k-committee (set of k candidates) or a family of k-committees. The main result of the paper states that for every Condorcet k-function and for every Condorcet k-correspondence, there are situations in which every optimistic or pessimistic voter with some specific preferences could manipulate the election by abstaining.

Suggested Citation

  • Joaquín Pérez & José L. Jimeno & Estefanía García, 2012. "No Show Paradox in Condorcet k-voting Procedures," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 291-303, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:21:y:2012:i:3:d:10.1007_s10726-010-9191-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-010-9191-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-010-9191-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-010-9191-9?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. Salvador Barberà & Danilo Coelho, 2008. "How to choose a non-controversial list with k names," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(1), pages 79-96, June.
    2. Gehrlein, William V., 1985. "The Condorcet criterion and committee selection," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 199-209, December.
    3. Thomas C. Ratliff, 2003. "Some startling inconsistencies when electing committees," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 21(3), pages 433-454, December.
    4. Joaqui´n Pérez, 2001. "The Strong No Show Paradoxes are a common flaw in Condorcet voting correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 18(3), pages 601-616.
    5. José Jimeno & Joaquín Pérez & Estefanía García, 2009. "An extension of the Moulin No Show Paradox for voting correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 33(3), pages 343-359, September.
    6. Moulin, Herve, 1988. "Condorcet's principle implies the no show paradox," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 53-64, June.
    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. Mostapha Diss & Ahmed Doghmi, 2016. "Multi-winner scoring election methods: Condorcet consistency and paradoxes," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 97-116, October.
    2. Ignacio García-Jurado & Luciano Méndez-Naya, 2019. "Subgame Perfection and the Rule of k Names," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 805-825, August.
    3. Joaquín Pérez & José L. Jimeno & Estefanía García, 2015. "No Show Paradox and the Golden Number in Generalized Condorcet Voting Methods," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 497-513, May.
    4. Eric Kamwa & Vincent Merlin, 2018. "Coincidence of Condorcet committees," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 50(1), pages 171-189, January.

    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. Jimeno, José L. & García, Estefanía & Pérez, Joaquín, 2011. "Extensions of the Young and Levenglick result about the inconsistency of Condorcet voting correspondences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 25-27, July.
    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. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2019. "On some k-scoring rules for committee elections: agreement and Condorcet Principle," Working Papers hal-02147735, HAL.
    4. Diss, Mostapha & Mahajne, Muhammad, 2020. "Social acceptability of Condorcet committees," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 14-27.
    5. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2018. "The Chamberlin-Courant Rule and the k-Scoring Rules: Agreement and Condorcet Committee Consistency," Working Papers halshs-01817943, HAL.
    6. M. Sanver & William Zwicker, 2012. "Monotonicity properties and their adaptation to irresolute social choice rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 39(2), pages 371-398, July.
    7. Conal Duddy, 2014. "Condorcet’s principle and the strong no-show paradoxes," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(2), pages 275-285, August.
    8. Egor Ianovski, 2022. "Electing a committee with dominance constraints," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 318(2), pages 985-1000, November.
    9. Joaquín Pérez & José L. Jimeno & Estefanía García, 2015. "No Show Paradox and the Golden Number in Generalized Condorcet Voting Methods," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 497-513, May.
    10. Guillaume Chèze, 2017. "Topological aggregation, the twin paradox and the No Show paradox," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(4), pages 707-715, April.
    11. Eric Kamwa & Vincent Merlin, 2018. "Coincidence of Condorcet committees," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 50(1), pages 171-189, January.
    12. Brandl, Florian & Brandt, Felix & Hofbauer, Johannes, 2019. "Welfare maximization entices participation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 308-314.
    13. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2020. "On Some k -scoring Rules for Committee Elections: Agreement and Condorcet Principle," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 130(5), pages 699-725.
    14. Felix Brandt, 2015. "Set-monotonicity implies Kelly-strategyproofness," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(4), pages 793-804, December.
    15. Eric Kamwa, 2013. "The Kemeny rule and committees elections," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 33(1), pages 648-654.
    16. Eric Kamwa, 2017. "Stable Rules for Electing Committees and Divergence on Outcomes," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 547-564, May.
    17. 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.
    18. Haris Aziz & Barton E. Lee, 2020. "The expanding approvals rule: improving proportional representation and monotonicity," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 54(1), pages 1-45, January.
    19. Brandt, Felix & Geist, Christian & Peters, Dominik, 2017. "Optimal bounds for the no-show paradox via SAT solving," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 18-27.
    20. Edith Elkind & Piotr Faliszewski & Piotr Skowron & Arkadii Slinko, 2017. "Properties of multiwinner voting rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(3), pages 599-632, March.

    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:spr:grdene:v:21:y:2012:i:3:d:10.1007_s10726-010-9191-9. 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.