IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/sochwe/v48y2017i4d10.1007_s00355-017-1032-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Topological aggregation, the twin paradox and the No Show paradox

Author

Listed:
  • Guillaume Chèze

    (Université Paul Sabatier)

Abstract

Consider the framework of topological aggregation introduced by Chichilnisky (Adv Math 37(2):165–176, 1980). We prove that in this framework the twin paradox and the No Show paradox cannot be avoided. Anonymity and unanimity are not needed to obtain these results.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:sochwe:v:48:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1007_s00355-017-1032-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s00355-017-1032-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00355-017-1032-1
    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/s00355-017-1032-1?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. Lauwers, Luc, 2000. "Topological social choice," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 1-39, July.
    2. I.D.A. Macintyre, 1998. "Two-Person and majority continuous aggregation in 2-good space in Social Choice: a note," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 199-209, April.
    3. Yuliy M. Baryshnikov, 1997. "Topological and discrete social choice: in a search of a theory," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 14(2), pages 199-209.
    4. Baigent, Nicholas, 2011. "Chapter Eighteen - Topological Theories of Social Choice," Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, in: K. J. Arrow & A. K. Sen & K. Suzumura (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 18, pages 301-334, Elsevier.
    5. K. J. Arrow & A. K. Sen & K. Suzumura (ed.), 2011. "Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare," Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 2, number 2.
    6. Chichilnisky, Graciela, 1980. "Social choice and the topology of spaces of preferences," MPRA Paper 8006, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Moulin, Herve, 1988. "Condorcet's principle implies the no show paradox," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 53-64, June.
    8. Conal Duddy & Ashley Piggins, 2012. "The proximity condition," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 39(2), pages 353-369, July.
    9. Tanaka, Yasuhito, 2009. "On the equivalence of the Arrow impossibility theorem and the Brouwer fixed point theorem when individual preferences are weak orders," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(3-4), pages 241-249, March.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Luc Lauwers, 2009. "The topological approach to the aggregation of preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 33(3), pages 449-476, September.
    13. Paras Mehta, 1997. "Topological methods in social choice: an overview," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 14(2), pages 233-243.
    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. Rajsbaum, Sergio & Raventós-Pujol, Armajac, 2022. "A Combinatorial Topology Approach to Arrow's Impossibility Theorem," MPRA Paper 112004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Lauwers, Luc, 2000. "Topological social choice," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 1-39, July.
    3. Andrea Attar & Thomas Mariotti & François Salanié, 2019. "On a class of smooth preferences," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 7(1), pages 37-57, May.
    4. Tanaka, Yasuhito, 2007. "A topological approach to Wilson's impossibility theorem," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 184-191, February.
    5. Tanaka, Yasuhito, 2009. "On the equivalence of the Arrow impossibility theorem and the Brouwer fixed point theorem when individual preferences are weak orders," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(3-4), pages 241-249, March.
    6. 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.
    7. Yasuhito Tanaka, 2005. "A topological proof of Eliaz's unified theorem of social choice theory (forthcoming in "Applied Mathematics and Computation")," Public Economics 0510021, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 26 Oct 2005.
    8. Yasuhito Tanaka, 2005. "A topological approach to the Arrow impossibility theorem when individual preferences are weak orders (forcoming in ``Applied Mathematics and Compuation''(Elsevier))," Public Economics 0506013, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 17 Jun 2005.
    9. 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.
    10. Conal Duddy, 2014. "Condorcet’s principle and the strong no-show paradoxes," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(2), pages 275-285, August.
    11. 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.
    12. Brandl, Florian & Brandt, Felix & Hofbauer, Johannes, 2019. "Welfare maximization entices participation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 308-314.
    13. Maurice Salles, 2014. "‘Social choice and welfare’ at 30: its role in the development of social choice theory and welfare economics," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(1), pages 1-16, January.
    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. 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.
    16. Greenfield, Mark & Zhang, Jun, 2018. "Null preference and the resolution of the topological social choice paradox," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 47-51.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Crespo, Juan A. & Sanchez-Gabites, J.J, 2016. "Solving the Social Choice problem under equality constraints," MPRA Paper 72757, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:sochwe:v:48:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1007_s00355-017-1032-1. 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.