IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/reecde/v1y1994i1p289-299.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Condorcet efficiency of positional voting rules with single-peaked preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Dominique Lepelley

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Dominique Lepelley, 1994. "Condorcet efficiency of positional voting rules with single-peaked preferences," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 1(1), pages 289-299, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:reecde:v:1:y:1994:i:1:p:289-299
    DOI: 10.1007/BF02716627
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/BF02716627
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF02716627?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. Van Newenhizen, Jill, 1992. "The Borda Method Is Most Likely to Respect the Condorcet Principle," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 2(1), pages 69-83, January.
    2. Gehrlein, William V., 1992. "Condorcet efficiency of simple voting rules for large electorates," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 61-66, September.
    3. Gehrlein, William V., 1982. "Condorcet efficiency and constant scoring rules," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 2(2), pages 123-130, March.
    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 & Dominique Lepelley, 2009. "The Unexpected Behavior of Plurality Rule," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 67(3), pages 267-293, 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. 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.
    2. Wilson, Mark C. & Pritchard, Geoffrey, 2007. "Probability calculations under the IAC hypothesis," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 244-256, December.
    3. Regenwetter, Michel & Grofman, Bernard & Marley, A. A. J., 2002. "On the model dependence of majority preference relations reconstructed from ballot or survey data," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 451-466, July.
    4. Merlin, Vincent & Valognes, Fabrice, 2004. "The impact of indifferent voters on the likelihood of some voting paradoxes," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 343-361, November.
    5. 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.
    6. Eric Kamwa, 2019. "On the Likelihood of the Borda Effect: The Overall Probabilities for General Weighted Scoring Rules and Scoring Runoff Rules," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 519-541, June.
    7. 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.
    8. Eric Kamwa, 2018. "On the Likelihood of the Borda Effect: The Overall Probabilities for General Weighted Scoring Rules and Scoring Runoff Rules," Working Papers hal-01786590, HAL.
    9. Zachary F. Lansdowne, 1996. "Ordinal ranking methods for multicriterion decision making," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(5), pages 613-627, August.
    10. 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.
    11. Mostapha Diss & William Gehrlein, 2012. "Borda’s Paradox with weighted scoring rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 38(1), pages 121-136, January.
    12. Dominique Lepelley & Issofa Moyouwou & Hatem Smaoui, 2018. "Monotonicity paradoxes in three-candidate elections using scoring elimination rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 50(1), pages 1-33, January.
    13. Brian Kogelmann, 2017. "Aggregating out of indeterminacy," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 16(2), pages 210-232, May.
    14. Achill Schürmann, 2013. "Exploiting polyhedral symmetries in social choice," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(4), pages 1097-1110, April.
    15. Emilio De Santis & Fabio Spizzichino, 2023. "Construction of voting situations concordant with ranking patterns," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 46(1), pages 129-156, June.
    16. William V. Gehrlein & Dominique Lepelley, 2015. "The Condorcet Efficiency Advantage that Voter Indifference Gives to Approval Voting Over Some Other Voting Rules," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 243-269, March.
    17. 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.
    18. Bernardo Moreno & M. Puy, 2009. "Plurality Rule Works In Three-Candidate Elections," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 145-162, August.
    19. 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.
    20. William Gehrlein & Dominique Lepelley, 2010. "On the probability of observing Borda’s paradox," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 35(1), pages 1-23, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    D71; Social choice; Positional voting rules; Single-peakedness; Condorcet efficiency;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:reecde:v:1:y:1994:i:1:p:289-299. 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.