Scoring rules on dichotomous preferences
AbstractIn this paper, we study individual incentives to report preferences truthfully for the special case when individuals have dichotomous preferences on the set of alternatives and preferences are aggregated in form of scoring rules. In particular, we show that (a) the Borda Count coincides with Approval Voting on the dichotomous preference domain, (b) the Borda Count is the only strategy-proof scoring rule on the dichotomous preference domain, and (c) if at least three individuals participate in the election, then the dichotomous preference domain is the unique maximal rich domain under which the Borda Count is strategy-proof.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Springer in its journal Social Choice and Welfare.
Volume (Year): 31 (2008)
Issue (Month): 1 (June)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://link.springer.de/link/service/journals/00355/index.htm
Other versions of this item:
- D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Berga, Dolors & Serizawa, Shigehiro, 2000.
"Maximal Domain for Strategy-Proof Rules with One Public Good,"
Journal of Economic Theory,
Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 39-61, January.
- Berga, D & Serizawa, S, 1996. "Maximal Domain for Strategy-Proof Rules with one Public Good," UFAE and IAE Working Papers 353.96, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Anàlisi Econòmica (UAB) and Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica (CSIC).
- Salvador Barbera & Hugo Sonnenschein & Lin Zhou, 1990.
"Voting by Committees,"
Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers
941, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
- Martin Barbie & Clemens Puppe & Attila Tasnádi, 2006.
"Non-manipulable domains for the Borda count,"
Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 411-430, January.
- Saari, Donald G, 1990. " Susceptibility to Manipulation," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 64(1), pages 21-41, January.
- Bogomolnaia, Anna & Moulin, Herve & Stong, Richard, 2003.
"Collective Choice under Dichotomous Preferences,"
2003-09, Rice University, Department of Economics.
- Michael Dummett, 1998. "The Borda count and agenda manipulation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 289-296.
- David A. Smith, 1999. "Manipulability measures of common social choice functions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 639-661.
- Ching, Stephen & Serizawa, Shigehiro, 1998. "A Maximal Domain for the Existence of Strategy-Proof Rules," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 78(1), pages 157-166, January.
- Marc Vorsatz, 2004.
"Approval Voting ion Dichotomous Preferences,"
UFAE and IAE Working Papers
619.04, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Anàlisi Econòmica (UAB) and Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica (CSIC).
- Uuganbaatar Ninjbat, 2012. "Remarks on Young's theorem," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 32(1), pages 706-714.
- Darmann, Andreas & Klamler, Christian & Pferschy, Ulrich, 2009. "Maximizing the minimum voter satisfaction on spanning trees," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 238-250, September.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Guenther Eichhorn) or (Christopher F Baum).
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.