IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/psycho/v55y1990i4p695-706.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The expected likelihood of transitivity of preference

Author

Listed:
  • WIlliam Gehrlein

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • WIlliam Gehrlein, 1990. "The expected likelihood of transitivity of preference," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 55(4), pages 695-706, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:psycho:v:55:y:1990:i:4:p:695-706
    DOI: 10.1007/BF02294617
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/BF02294617
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF02294617?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. Gehrlein, William V., 1989. "The probability of intransitivity of pairwise comparisons in individual preference," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 67-75, February.
    2. William Gehrlein & Peter Fishburn, 1976. "Condorcet's paradox and anonymous preference profiles," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 1-18, 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. William Gehrlein, 2007. "Coincidence of Agreement between Probabilistic and Algebraic Choosers," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 461-487, June.

    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. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Issofa Moyouwou & Hatem Smaoui, 2021. "Condorcet Efficiency of General Weighted Scoring Rules Under IAC: Indifference and Abstention," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Mostapha Diss & Vincent Merlin (ed.), Evaluating Voting Systems with Probability Models, pages 55-73, Springer.
    2. Gehrlein, William V. & Moyouwou, Issofa & Lepelley, Dominique, 2013. "The impact of voters’ preference diversity on the probability of some electoral outcomes," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 352-365.
    3. Dominique Lepelley & Fabrice Valognes, 1999. "On the Kim and Roush Voting Procedure," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 109-123, March.
    4. William Gehrlein, 2002. "Condorcet's paradox and the likelihood of its occurrence: different perspectives on balanced preferences ," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 171-199, March.
    5. Yuliya A. Veselova, 2020. "Does Incomplete Information Reduce Manipulability?," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 523-548, June.
    6. Sébastien Courtin & Boniface Mbih & Issofa Moyouwou, 2014. "Are Condorcet procedures so bad according to the reinforcement axiom?," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(4), pages 927-940, April.
    7. Harrison-Trainor, Matthew, 2022. "An analysis of random elections with large numbers of voters," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 68-84.
    8. Regenwetter, Michel & Marley, A. A. J. & Grofman, Bernard, 2002. "A general concept of majority rule," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 405-428, July.
    9. Mostapha Diss, 2015. "Strategic manipulability of self-selective social choice rules," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 229(1), pages 347-376, June.
    10. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Issofa Moyouwou & Hatem Smaoui, 2019. "Condorcet efficiency of general weighted scoring rules under IAC: indifference and abstention," Working Papers hal-02196387, HAL.
    11. Lepelley, Dominique & Chantreuil, Frederic & Berg, Sven, 1996. "The likelihood of monotonicity paradoxes in run-off elections," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 133-146, June.
    12. Tomas J. McIntee, 2017. "A geometric model of sensitivity of multistage elections to change," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 49(1), pages 89-115, June.
    13. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2018. "A Note on the Likelihood of the Absolute Majority Paradoxes," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 38(4), pages 1727-1734.
    14. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa, 2019. "Simulations in Models of Preference Aggregation," Working Papers hal-02424936, HAL.
    15. Winfried Bruns & Bogdan Ichim & Christof Söger, 2019. "Computations of volumes and Ehrhart series in four candidates elections," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 280(1), pages 241-265, September.
    16. Mostapha Diss & Patrizia Pérez-Asurmendi, 2015. "Consistent collective decisions under majorities based on difference of votes," Working Papers 1533, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    17. Diss, Mostapha & Louichi, Ahmed & Merlin, Vincent & Smaoui, Hatem, 2012. "An example of probability computations under the IAC assumption: The stability of scoring rules," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 57-66.
    18. Lepelley, Dominique & Gehrlein, William V., 2000. "Strong Condorcet efficiency of scoring rules," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 157-164, August.
    19. Diss, Mostapha & Dougherty, Keith & Heckelman, Jac C., 2023. "When ties are possible: Weak Condorcet winners and Arrovian rationality," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 128-136.
    20. Boratyn, Daria & Kirsch, Werner & Słomczyński, Wojciech & Stolicki, Dariusz & Życzkowski, Karol, 2020. "Average weights and power in weighted voting games," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 90-99.

    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:psycho:v:55:y:1990:i:4:p:695-706. 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.