IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/f/c/psa232.html
   My authors  Follow this author

M. Remzi Sanver

Citations

Many of the citations below have been collected in an experimental project, CitEc, where a more detailed citation analysis can be found. These are citations from works listed in RePEc that could be analyzed mechanically. So far, only a minority of all works could be analyzed. See under "Corrections" how you can help improve the citation analysis.

Working papers

  1. Justin Kruger & M. Remzi Sanver, 2021. "An Arrovian impossibility in combining ranking and evaluation," Post-Print hal-03347632, HAL.

    Cited by:

    1. Stefano Vannucci, 2022. "Agenda manipulation-proofness, stalemates, and redundant elicitation in preference aggregation. Exposing the bright side of Arrow's theorem," Papers 2210.03200, arXiv.org.
    2. Guy Barokas & Yves Sprumont, 2022. "The broken Borda rule and other refinements of approval ranking," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 58(1), pages 187-199, January.
    3. Alessandro Albano & José Luis García-Lapresta & Antonella Plaia & Mariangela Sciandra, 2023. "A family of distances for preference–approvals," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 323(1), pages 1-29, April.

  2. Umut Keskin & M Remzi Sanver & H Berkay Tosunlu, 2021. "Monotonicity Violations Under Plurality With A Runoff: The Case Of French Presidential Elections," Working Papers hal-03413280, HAL.

    Cited by:

    1. David McCune & Adam Graham-Squire, 2023. "Monotonicity Anomalies in Scottish Local Government Elections," Papers 2305.17741, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2023.

  3. Ali Ozkes & M. Remzi Sanver, 2021. "Anonymous, neutral, and resolute social choice revisited," Post-Print hal-03341695, HAL.

    Cited by:

    1. Lirong Xia, 2022. "Most Equitable Voting Rules," Papers 2205.14838, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2023.
    2. Hiroki Saitoh, 2022. "Characterization of tie-breaking plurality rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 59(1), pages 139-173, July.
    3. Onur Doğan & Ayça Ebru Giritligil, 2022. "Anonymous and neutral social choice: a unified framework for existence results, maximal domains and tie-breaking," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(3), pages 469-489, September.

  4. Umut Keskin & M. Remzi Sanver & H. Berkay Tosunlu, 2021. "Recovering non-monotonicity problems of voting rules," Post-Print hal-03250759, HAL.

    Cited by:

    1. Umut Keskin & M. Remzi Sanver & H. Berkay Tosunlu, 2022. "Monotonicity violations under plurality with a runoff: the case of French presidential elections," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 59(2), pages 305-333, August.

  5. Jean-François Laslier & Matias Nunez & M Remzi Sanver, 2020. "A solution to the two-person implementation problem," Working Papers halshs-02173504, HAL.

    Cited by:

    1. Margarita Kirneva & Matias Nunez, 2021. "Voting by Simultaneous Vetoes," Working Papers halshs-03240630, HAL.
    2. Anna bogomolnaia Ron Holzman Herve Moulin, 2021. "Wost Case in Voting and Bargaining," Papers 2104.02316, arXiv.org.
    3. R Jain & V Korpela & M Lombardi, 2022. "Two-Player Rationalizable Implementation," Working Papers 202228, University of Liverpool, Department of Economics.
    4. Damien Bol & Jean-François Laslier & Matías Núñez, 2022. "Two Person Bargaining Mechanisms: A Laboratory Experiment," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(6), pages 1145-1177, December.
    5. Núñez, Matías & Pimienta, Carlos & Xefteris, Dimitrios, 2022. "On the implementation of the median," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    6. Anna Bogomolnaia & Ron Holzman & Hervé Moulin, 2021. "Worst Case in Voting and Bargaining," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 21012, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    7. Bogomolnaia, Anna & Holzman, Ron & Moulin, Hervé, 2023. "On guarantees, vetoes and random dictators," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 18(1), January.
    8. Mehmet Barlo & Nuh Aygün Dalkıran, 2022. "Computational implementation," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(4), pages 605-633, December.

  6. Matias Nunez & M. Remzi Sanver, 2020. "On the subgame perfect implementability of voting rules," Post-Print hal-03092402, HAL.

    Cited by:

    1. Hayrullah Dindar & Jean Lainé, 2022. "Compromise in combinatorial vote," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 59(1), pages 175-206, July.
    2. Salvador Barberà & Danilo Coelho, 2022. "Compromising on compromise rules," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 53(1), pages 95-112, March.
    3. Mehmet Barlo & Nuh Aygün Dalkıran, 2022. "Computational implementation," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(4), pages 605-633, December.

  7. M. Remzi Sanver & William Zwicker & Hervé Moulin & Jean-François Laslier, 2019. "The Future of Economic Design," Post-Print hal-02517300, HAL.

    Cited by:

    1. Juan D. Moreno-Ternero & Juan Vidal-Puga, 2020. "Aggregator Operators for Dynamic Rationing," Working Papers 20.01, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics.
    2. Yoshinori Nakagawa & Tatsuyoshi Saijo, 2020. "Can Individuals Caring Little about Future Generations Serve As Their Representatives?," Working Papers SDES-2020-9, Kochi University of Technology, School of Economics and Management, revised Jul 2020.
    3. Yoshinori Nakagawa & Tatsuyoshi Saijo, 2020. "Future Design as a Metacognitive Intervention for Presentism," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-15, September.
    4. Haake, Claus-Jochen & Trockel, Walter, 2021. "Socio-legal Systems and Implementation of the Nash Solution in Debreu-Hurwicz Equilibrium," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 647, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    5. Biung-Ghi Ju & Min Kim & Suyi Kim & Juan D. Moreno-Ternero, 2021. "Fair international protocols for the abatement of GHG emissions," Working Papers 21.01, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics.
    6. Mikhail Pakhnin, 2021. "Collective Choice with Heterogeneous Time Preferences," CESifo Working Paper Series 9141, CESifo.
    7. Shun Katsuki & Yoichi Hizen, 2020. "Does Voting Solve the Intergenerational Sustainability Dilemma?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-15, August.
    8. Haris Aziz & Florian Brandl, 2020. "The Vigilant Eating Rule: A General Approach for Probabilistic Economic Design with Constraints," Papers 2008.08991, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2021.
    9. Zhang Jingchao & Koji Kotani & Tatsuyoshi Saijo, 2017. "Social value orientation and topography in urbanization: A case of Beijing, China," Working Papers SDES-2017-21, Kochi University of Technology, School of Economics and Management, revised Oct 2017.
    10. Jean Baccelli & Marcus Pivato, 2021. "Philippe Mongin (1950–2020)," Post-Print hal-03797424, HAL.
    11. Yoshinori Nakagawa & Tatsuyoshi Saijo, 2020. "Visual Narrative for Taking Future Generation’s Perspective," Working Papers SDES-2020-8, Kochi University of Technology, School of Economics and Management, revised Jul 2020.
    12. Davide Grossi, 2021. "Lecture Notes on Voting Theory," Papers 2105.00216, arXiv.org.
    13. Christopher P. Chambers & Juan D. Moreno-Ternero, 2021. "Bilateral Redistribution," Working Papers 21.07, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics.
    14. Haris Aziz & Bettina Klaus, 2017. "Random Matching under Priorities: Stability and No Envy Concepts," Cahiers de Recherches Economiques du Département d'économie 17.09bis, Université de Lausanne, Faculté des HEC, Département d’économie.
    15. Stéphane Airiau & Haris Aziz & Ioannis Caragiannis & Justin Kruger & Jérôme Lang & Dominik Peters, 2023. "Portioning Using Ordinal Preferences: Fairness and Efficiency," Post-Print hal-03843084, HAL.
    16. John Duffy & Lucie Lebeau & Daniela Puzzello, 2021. "Bargaining Under Liquidity Constraints: Nash vs. Kalai in the Laboratory," Working Papers 2113, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
    17. Takashi Hayashi & Michele Lombardi, 2021. "Social discount rate: spaces for agreement," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 9(2), pages 247-257, October.
    18. Jens Gudmundsson & Jens Leth Hougaard & Trine Tornøe Platz, 2020. "Decentralized Task Coordination," IFRO Working Paper 2020/11, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    19. Yoichi Kasajima & Manabu Toda, 2021. "Singles monotonicity and stability in one-to-one matching problems," Working Papers 2023-1, Waseda University, Faculty of Political Science and Economics.
    20. HARA Keishiro & KITAKAJI Yoko & SUGINO Hiroaki & YOSHIOKA Ritsuji & TAKEDA Hiroyuki & HIZEN Yoichi & SAIJO Tatsuyoshi, 2019. "Effects of Experiencing the Role of Imaginary Future Generations in Decision-Making - a Case Study of Participatory Deliberation in a Japanese Town -," Discussion papers 19104, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    21. Haris Aziz & Florian Brandl, 2021. "Efficient, Fair, and Incentive-Compatible Healthcare Rationing," Papers 2102.04384, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2021.

  8. Jean-François Laslier & Hervé Moulin & M Remzi Sanver, 2019. "The Future of Economic Design: The Continuing Development of a Field as Envisioned by Its Researchers," Post-Print halshs-02489653, HAL.

    Cited by:

    1. Juan D. Moreno-Ternero & Juan Vidal-Puga, 2020. "Aggregator Operators for Dynamic Rationing," Working Papers 20.01, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics.
    2. Shun Katsuki & Yoichi Hizen, 2020. "Does Voting Solve the Intergenerational Sustainability Dilemma?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-15, August.
    3. Zhang Jingchao & Koji Kotani & Tatsuyoshi Saijo, 2017. "Social value orientation and topography in urbanization: A case of Beijing, China," Working Papers SDES-2017-21, Kochi University of Technology, School of Economics and Management, revised Oct 2017.
    4. Yoshinori Nakagawa & Tatsuyoshi Saijo, 2020. "Visual Narrative for Taking Future Generation’s Perspective," Working Papers SDES-2020-8, Kochi University of Technology, School of Economics and Management, revised Jul 2020.
    5. John Duffy & Lucie Lebeau & Daniela Puzzello, 2021. "Bargaining Under Liquidity Constraints: Nash vs. Kalai in the Laboratory," Working Papers 2113, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

  9. Vincent Merlin & Ipek Özkal Sanver & M. Remzi Sanver, 2019. "Compromise Rules Revisited," Post-Print halshs-02065282, HAL.

    Cited by:

    1. Matías Núñez & M. Remzi Sanver, 2021. "On the subgame perfect implementability of voting rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(2), pages 421-441, February.
    2. Mostapha Diss & Muhammad Mahajne, 2019. "Social Acceptability of Condorcet Committees," Working Papers 1906, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    3. Mostapha Diss & Clinton Gubong Gassi & Issofa Moyouwou, 2023. "Social acceptability and the majoritarian compromise rule," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 61(3), pages 489-510, October.
    4. Eric Kamwa, 2023. "On two voting systems that combine approval and preferences: fallback voting and preference approval voting," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 196(1), pages 169-205, July.
    5. Samaneh Zahedi & Amir Hedayati Aghmashhadi & Christine Fürst, 2021. "Optimal Politics of Conflict over Physical-Industrial Development Using a Technique of Cooperative Game Theory in Iran," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-20, November.
    6. Olivier Cailloux & Beatrice Napolitano & M. Remzi Sanver, 2023. "Compromising as an equal loss principle," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 27(3), pages 547-560, September.

  10. M. Remzi Sanver, 2018. "Implementing Pareto Optimal and Individually Rational Outcomes by Veto," Post-Print hal-02517252, HAL.

    Cited by:

    1. Jean-François Laslier & Matias Nunez & M. Remzi Sanver, 2021. "A solution to the two-person implementation problem," Post-Print hal-03498370, HAL.

  11. Sean Horan & Martin J. Osborne & M. Remzi Sanver, 2018. "Positively responsive collective choice rules and majority rule: a generalization of May's theorem to many alternatives," Working Papers tecipa-599, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.

    Cited by:

    1. Mihir Bhattacharya & Nicolas Gravel, 2019. "Is the preference of the majority representative?," AMSE Working Papers 1921, Aix-Marseille School of Economics, France.
    2. Josep Freixas & Montserrat Pons, 2021. "An extension and an alternative characterization of May’s theorem," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 302(1), pages 137-150, July.
    3. John Duggan, 2019. "Weak rationalizability and Arrovian impossibility theorems for responsive social choice," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 179(1), pages 7-40, April.
    4. Gonzalez, Stéphane & Lardon, Aymeric, 2021. "Axiomatic foundations of the core for games in effectiveness form," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 28-38.
    5. Stéphane Gonzalez & Aymeric Lardon, 2018. "Axiomatic Foundations of a Unifying Core," Working Papers halshs-01872098, HAL.
    6. Kirneva Margarita & N'u~nez Mat'ias, 2023. "Legitimacy of collective decisions: a mechanism design approach," Papers 2302.09548, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2023.
    7. Stergios Athanasoglou & Somouaoga Bonkoungou & Lars Ehlers, 2023. "Strategy-proof preference aggregation and the anonymity-neutrality tradeoff," Working Papers 519, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics.

  12. Bora Erdamar & M. Remzi Sanver & Shin Sato, 2017. "Evaluationwise strategy-proofness," Post-Print hal-02517255, HAL.

    Cited by:

    1. Gori, Michele, 2021. "Manipulation of social choice functions under incomplete information," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 350-369.

  13. Matías Núñez & Remzi Sanver, 2016. "Revisiting The Connection Between The No-Show Paradox And Monotonicity ," Working Papers hal-01276072, HAL.

    Cited by:

    1. Dominique Lepelley & Hatem Smaoui, 2019. "Comparing Two Ways for Eliminating Candidates in Three-Alternative Elections Using Sequential Scoring Rules," Post-Print hal-03544910, HAL.
    2. Achille Basile & Surekha Rao & K. P. S. Bhaskara Rao, 2020. "Anonymous, non-manipulable, binary social choice," Papers 2007.01552, arXiv.org.
    3. Hannu Nurmi, 2020. "The Incidence of Some Voting Paradoxes Under Domain Restrictions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(6), pages 1107-1120, December.
    4. Can, Burak & Ergin, Emre & Pourpouneh, Mohsen, 2017. "Condorcet versus participation criterion in social welfare rules," Research Memorandum 020, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    5. D. Marc Kilgour & Jean-Charles Grégoire & Angèle M. Foley, 2020. "The prevalence and consequences of ballot truncation in ranked-choice elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 184(1), pages 197-218, July.
    6. Abhinaba Lahiri & Anup Pramanik, 2020. "On strategy-proof social choice between two alternatives," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 54(4), pages 581-607, April.

  14. Ali Ihsan Ozkes & Remzi Sanver, 2016. "Absolute Qualified Majoritarianism: How Does the Threshold Matter?," Working Papers halshs-01416727, HAL.

    Cited by:

    1. Susumu Cato & Stéphane Gonzalez & Eric Rémila & Philippe Solal, 2022. "Approval voting versus proportional threshold methods: so far and yet so near," Working Papers halshs-03858356, HAL.

  15. Jean Lainé & Ali Ihsan Ozkes & Remzi Sanver, 2014. "Hyper-Stable Social Welfare Functions," Working Papers hal-00871312, HAL.

    Cited by:

    1. Mihir Bhattacharya, 2019. "Constitutionally consistent voting rules over single-peaked domains," Post-Print hal-02510491, HAL.
    2. Gilbert Laffond & Jean Lainé & M. Remzi Sanver, 2020. "Metrizable preferences over preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 55(1), pages 177-191, June.
    3. Kikuchi, Kazuya, 2016. "Comparing preference orders: Asymptotic independence," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 1-5.
    4. Stergios, Athanasoglou, 2017. "An investigation of weak-veto rules in preference aggregation," Working Papers 363, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised 18 Feb 2017.

  16. Bora Erdamar & José Luis Garcia-Lapresta & David Pérez-Roman & Remzi Sanver, 2012. "Measuring consensus in a preference-approval context," Working Papers hal-00681297, HAL.

    Cited by:

    1. Artur Amsharuk & Grażyna Łaska, 2023. "The Approach to Finding Locations for Wind Farms Using GIS and MCDA: Case Study Based on Podlaskie Voivodeship, Poland," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(20), pages 1-24, October.

  17. Shurojit Chatterji & Remzi Sanver & Arunava Sen, 2010. "On Domains That Admit Well-behaved Strategy-proof Social Choice Functions," Working Papers 07-2010, Singapore Management University, School of Economics.

    Cited by:

    1. Debasis Mishra, 2016. "Ordinal Bayesian incentive compatibility in restricted domains," Discussion Papers 16-02, Indian Statistical Institute, Delhi.
    2. Chatterji, Shurojit & Sen, Arunava & Zeng, Huaxia, 2016. "A characterization of single-peaked preferences via random social choice functions," Economics and Statistics Working Papers 11-2016, Singapore Management University, School of Economics.
    3. Salvador Barberà & Dolors Berga & Bernardo Moreno, 2018. "Restricted Environments and Incentive Compatibility in Interdependent Values Models," Working Papers 1024, Barcelona School of Economics.
    4. Agustín G Bonifacio & Jordi Massó & Pablo Neme, 2022. "Preference Restrictions for Simple and Strategy-Proof Rules: Local and Weakly Single-Peaked Domains," Working Papers 1324, Barcelona School of Economics.
    5. Puppe, Clemens, 2017. "The Single-Peaked Domain Revisited: A Simple Global Characterization," VfS Annual Conference 2017 (Vienna): Alternative Structures for Money and Banking 168068, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    6. Shurojit Chatterji & Arunava Sen & Huaxia Zeng, 2012. "Random Dictatorship Domains," Working Papers 27-2012, Singapore Management University, School of Economics.
    7. Chatterji, Shurojit & Zeng, Huaxia, 2023. "A taxonomy of non-dictatorial unidimensional domains," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 228-269.
    8. Ernesto Savaglio & Stefano Vannucci, 2014. "Strategy-proofness and single-peackedness in bounded distributive lattices," Papers 1406.5120, arXiv.org.
    9. Haeringer, Guillaume & Hałaburda, Hanna, 2016. "Monotone strategyproofness," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 68-77.
    10. Shurojit Chatterji & Huaxia Zeng, 2023. "Decomposability and Strategy-proofness in Multidimensional Models," Papers 2303.10889, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2023.
    11. Chatterji, Shurojit & Zeng, Huaxia, 2019. "Random mechanism design on multidimensional domains," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 25-105.
    12. Agustín G Bonifacio & Jordi Massó, 2019. "On Strategy-Proofness and Semilattice Single-Peakedness," Working Papers 1087, Barcelona School of Economics.
    13. Achuthankutty, Gopakumar & Roy, Souvik, 2017. "Strategy-proof Rules on Partially Single-peaked Domains," MPRA Paper 82267, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Shurojit Chatterji & Souvik Roy & Soumyarup Sadhukhan & Arunava Sen & Huaxia Zeng, 2021. "Probabilistic Fixed Ballot Rules and Hybrid Domains," Papers 2105.10677, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2022.
    15. Chatterji, Shurojit & Roy, Souvik & Sadhukhan, Soumyarup & Sen, Arunava & Zeng, Huaxia, 2022. "Probabilistic fixed ballot rules and hybrid domains," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    16. Salvador Barberà & Dolors Berga & Bernardo Moreno, 2019. "Arrow on domain conditions: a fruitful road to travel," Working Papers 1095, Barcelona School of Economics.
    17. Jordi Massó & Shurojit Chatterji, 2015. "On Strategy-proofness and the Salience of Single-peakedness," UFAE and IAE Working Papers 952.15, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Anàlisi Econòmica (UAB) and Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica (CSIC).
    18. Achuthankutty, Gopakumar & Roy, Souvik, 2017. "On Top-connected Single-peaked and Partially Single-peaked Domains," MPRA Paper 78102, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Agustín Germán Bonifacio & Jordi Massó & Pablo Neme, 2021. "Preference restrictions for strategy-proof and simple rules: local and weakly single-peaked domains," Asociación Argentina de Economía Política: Working Papers 4441, Asociación Argentina de Economía Política.
    20. Debasis Mishra & Anup Pramanik & Souvik Roy, 2013. "Implementation in multidimensional domains with ordinal restrictions," Discussion Papers 13-07, Indian Statistical Institute, Delhi.
    21. Moulin, Hervé, 2017. "One dimensional mechanism design," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(2), May.
    22. Shurojit Chatterji & Huaxia Zeng, 2022. "A Taxonomy of Non-dictatorial Unidimensional Domains," Papers 2201.00496, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2022.
    23. Reffgen, Alexander, 2015. "Strategy-proof social choice on multiple and multi-dimensional single-peaked domains," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 349-383.
    24. Felix Brand & Patrick Lederer & Sascha Tausch, 2023. "Strategyproof Social Decision Schemes on Super Condorcet Domains," Papers 2302.12140, arXiv.org.
    25. Roy, Souvik & Sadhukhan, Soumyarup, 2020. "On the structure of division rules," MPRA Paper 104402, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    26. Yan Long, 2019. "Strategy-proof group selection under single-peaked preferences over group size," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 68(3), pages 579-608, October.

  18. Ceyhun Coban & Remzi Sanver, 2009. "Social Choice without the Pareto Principle under Weak Independence," Working Papers 201005, Murat Sertel Center for Advanced Economic Studies, Istanbul Bilgi University.

    Cited by:

    1. Wesley H. Holliday & Mikayla Kelley, 2020. "A note on Murakami’s theorems and incomplete social choice without the Pareto principle," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 55(2), pages 243-253, August.
    2. Susumu Cato, 2016. "Weak independence and the Pareto principle," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(2), pages 295-314, August.
    3. Cato, Susumu, 2015. "Weak independent decisiveness and the existence of a unique vetoer," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 59-61.

  19. Murat R. Sertel & Remzi Sanver, 2001. "Strong Equilibrium Outcomes of Voting Games are the Generalized Condorcet Winners," Working Papers 0107, Department of Economics, Bilkent University.

    Cited by:

    1. Salvador Barberà & Danilo Coelho, 2015. "Balancing the Power to Appoint Officers," Working Papers 696, Barcelona School of Economics.
    2. Vincent Merlin & Jörg Naeve, 2000. "Implementation of Social Choice Functions via Demanding Equilibria," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 191/2000, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany, revised 25 Sep 2001.
    3. Elkind, Edith & Grandi, Umberto & Rossi, Francesca & Slinko, Arkadii, 2020. "Cognitive hierarchy and voting manipulation in k-approval voting," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 193-205.
    4. 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.
    5. Salvador Barberà & Danilo Coelho, 2004. "On the rule of K names," UFAE and IAE Working Papers 636.04, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Anàlisi Econòmica (UAB) and Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica (CSIC), revised 13 Mar 2007.
    6. Benoît R. Kloeckner, 2022. "Cycles in synchronous iterative voting: general robustness and examples in Approval Voting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 59(2), pages 423-466, August.
    7. Sinan Ertemel & Levent Kutlu & M. Remzi Sanver, 2015. "Voting games of resolute social choice correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(1), pages 187-201, June.
    8. Velez, Rodrigo A. & Thomson, William, 2012. "Let them cheat!," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 948-963.
    9. Yamamura, Hirofumi, 2016. "Coalitional stability in the location problem with single-dipped preferences: An application of the minimax theorem," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 48-57.

Articles

  1. Umut Keskin & M. Remzi Sanver & H. Berkay Tosunlu, 2022. "Monotonicity violations under plurality with a runoff: the case of French presidential elections," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 59(2), pages 305-333, August.
    See citations under working paper version above.
  2. Matías Núñez & M. Remzi Sanver, 2021. "On the subgame perfect implementability of voting rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(2), pages 421-441, February.
    See citations under working paper version above.
  3. Ali I. Ozkes & M. Remzi Sanver, 2021. "Correction to: Anonymous, neutral, and resolute social choice revisited," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 57(1), pages 115-115, July.

    Cited by:

    1. Lirong Xia, 2022. "Most Equitable Voting Rules," Papers 2205.14838, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2023.
    2. Hiroki Saitoh, 2022. "Characterization of tie-breaking plurality rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 59(1), pages 139-173, July.
    3. Onur Doğan & Ayça Ebru Giritligil, 2022. "Anonymous and neutral social choice: a unified framework for existence results, maximal domains and tie-breaking," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(3), pages 469-489, September.

  4. Ali I. Ozkes & M. Remzi Sanver, 2021. "Anonymous, neutral, and resolute social choice revisited," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 57(1), pages 97-113, July.
    See citations under working paper version above.
  5. Justin Kruger & M. Remzi Sanver, 2021. "An Arrovian impossibility in combining ranking and evaluation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 57(3), pages 535-555, October.
    See citations under working paper version above.
  6. Umut Keskin & M. Remzi Sanver & H. Berkay Tosunlu, 2021. "Recovering non-monotonicity problems of voting rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(1), pages 125-141, January.
    See citations under working paper version above.
  7. Laslier, Jean-François & Núñez, Matías & Remzi Sanver, M., 2021. "A solution to the two-person implementation problem," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    See citations under working paper version above.
  8. Vincent Merlin & İpek Özkal Sanver & M. Remzi Sanver, 2019. "Compromise Rules Revisited," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 63-78, February.
    See citations under working paper version above.
  9. Sean Horan & Martin J. Osborne & M. Remzi Sanver, 2019. "Positively Responsive Collective Choice Rules And Majority Rule: A Generalization Of May'S Theorem To Many Alternatives," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 60(4), pages 1489-1504, November.
    See citations under working paper version above.
  10. M. Remzi Sanver, 2018. "Implementing Pareto Optimal and Individually Rational Outcomes by Veto," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 223-233, April.
    See citations under working paper version above.
  11. 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.
    See citations under working paper version above.
  12. Ozkes, Ali Ihsan & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2017. "Absolute qualified majoritarianism: How does the threshold matter?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 20-22.
    See citations under working paper version above.
  13. M. Remzi Sanver, 2017. "Nash implementing social choice rules with restricted ranges," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 21(1), pages 65-72, March.

    Cited by:

    1. Altun, Ozan Altuğ & Barlo, Mehmet & Dalkıran, Nuh Aygün, 2023. "Implementation with a sympathizer," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 36-49.
    2. Mehmet Barlo & Nuh Aygün Dalkıran, 2022. "Computational implementation," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(4), pages 605-633, December.

  14. Erdamar, Bora & Sanver, M. Remzi & Sato, Shin, 2017. "Evaluationwise strategy-proofness," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 227-238.
    See citations under working paper version above.
  15. Jean Lainé & Ali Ozkes & Remzi Sanver, 2016. "Hyper-stable social welfare functions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(1), pages 157-182, January.
    See citations under working paper version above.
  16. Sinan Ertemel & Levent Kutlu & M. Remzi Sanver, 2015. "Voting games of resolute social choice correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(1), pages 187-201, June.

    Cited by:

    1. Salvador Barberà & Danilo Coelho, 2015. "Balancing the Power to Appoint Officers," Working Papers 696, Barcelona School of Economics.

  17. Ceyhun Coban & M. Sanver, 2014. "Social choice without the Pareto principle under weak independence," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 43(4), pages 953-961, December.
    See citations under working paper version above.
  18. Chatterji, Shurojit & Sanver, Remzi & Sen, Arunava, 2013. "On domains that admit well-behaved strategy-proof social choice functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(3), pages 1050-1073.
    See citations under working paper version above.
  19. Aleskerov, Fuad & Karabekyan, Daniel & Sanver, M. Remzi & Yakuba, Vyacheslav, 2012. "On the manipulability of voting rules: The case of 4 and 5 alternatives," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 67-73.

    Cited by:

    1. Lirong Xia, 2022. "The Impact of a Coalition: Assessing the Likelihood of Voter Influence in Large Elections," Papers 2202.06411, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2023.
    2. Mostapha Diss & Boris Tsvelikhovskiy, 2019. "Manipulable outcomes within the class of scoring voting rules," Papers 1911.09173, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2020.
    3. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa, 2020. "Simulations in Models of Preference Aggregation," Post-Print hal-02424936, HAL.
    4. Alexander Karpov, 2020. "The likelihood of single-peaked preferences under classic and new probability distribution assumptions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 55(4), pages 629-644, December.
    5. Gori, Michele, 2021. "Manipulation of social choice functions under incomplete information," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 350-369.
    6. Bednay, Dezső & Moskalenko, Anna & Tasnádi, Attila, 2019. "Dictatorship versus manipulability," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 72-76.
    7. Yuliya A. Veselova, 2020. "Does Incomplete Information Reduce Manipulability?," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 523-548, June.
    8. Jansen, C. & Schollmeyer, G. & Augustin, T., 2018. "A probabilistic evaluation framework for preference aggregation reflecting group homogeneity," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 49-62.
    9. Daniel Karabekyan, 2016. "Strategic Behavior in Exhaustive Ballot Voting: What Can We Learn from the FIFA World Cup 2018 and 2022 Host Elections?," HSE Working papers WP BRP 130/EC/2016, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    10. Aleksei Y. Kondratev & Alexander S. Nesterov, 2020. "Measuring majority power and veto power of voting rules," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 183(1), pages 187-210, April.
    11. Yuliya A. Veselova, 2016. "Does Incomplete Information Reduce Manipulability?," HSE Working papers WP BRP 152/EC/2016, National Research University Higher School of Economics.

  20. 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.

    Cited by:

    1. Conal Duddy, 2017. "Geometry of run-off elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 173(3), pages 267-288, December.
    2. 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.
    3. Brandt, Felix & Lederer, Patrick, 2023. "Characterizing the top cycle via strategyproofness," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), May.
    4. Aziz, Haris & Brandl, Florian & Brandt, Felix, 2015. "Universal Pareto dominance and welfare for plausible utility functions," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 123-133.
    5. Uuganbaatar Ninjbat, 2015. "Impossibility theorems are modified and unified," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(4), pages 849-866, December.
    6. 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.
    7. Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit, 2021. "Measuring Violations of Positive Involvement in Voting," Papers 2106.11502, arXiv.org.
    8. Conal Duddy, 2014. "Condorcet’s principle and the strong no-show paradoxes," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(2), pages 275-285, August.
    9. Ali Ihsan Ozkes & Remzi Sanver, 2017. "Procedural versus Opportunity-Wise Equal Treatment of Alternatives: Neutrality Revisited," Working Papers halshs-01613138, HAL.
    10. 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.
    11. Onur Doğan & Ayça Ebru Giritligil, 2022. "Anonymous and neutral social choice: a unified framework for existence results, maximal domains and tie-breaking," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(3), pages 469-489, September.
    12. Aziz, Haris & Brandl, Florian & Brandt, Felix & Brill, Markus, 2018. "On the tradeoff between efficiency and strategyproofness," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 1-18.
    13. Felix Brandt & Patrick Lederer, 2021. "Characterizing the Top Cycle via Strategyproofness," Papers 2108.04622, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2023.
    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. Christian Basteck, 2022. "Characterising scoring rules by their solution in iteratively undominated strategies," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 74(1), pages 161-208, July.
    16. Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit, 2020. "Split Cycle: A New Condorcet Consistent Voting Method Independent of Clones and Immune to Spoilers," Papers 2004.02350, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2023.
    17. Onur Doğan & Ayça Ebru Giritligil, 2015. "Anonymous and Neutral Social Choice:Existence Results on Resoluteness," Working Papers 201501, Murat Sertel Center for Advanced Economic Studies, Istanbul Bilgi University.

  21. Fuad Aleskerov & Daniel Karabekyan & M. Sanver & Vyacheslav Yakuba, 2011. "An individual manipulability of positional voting rules," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 2(4), pages 431-446, December.

    Cited by:

    1. Lirong Xia, 2022. "The Impact of a Coalition: Assessing the Likelihood of Voter Influence in Large Elections," Papers 2202.06411, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2023.
    2. Krzysztof Kontek & Honorata Sosnowska, 2020. "Specific Tastes or Cliques of Jurors? How to Reduce the Level of Manipulation in Group Decisions?," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(6), pages 1057-1084, December.
    3. Bednay, Dezső & Moskalenko, Anna & Tasnádi, Attila, 2019. "Dictatorship versus manipulability," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 72-76.
    4. Yuliya A. Veselova, 2020. "Does Incomplete Information Reduce Manipulability?," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 523-548, June.
    5. Ivanov, A., 2022. "On the algorithms of exact estimations of manipulability of social choice rules for the case of 3 alternatives," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 57(5), pages 14-23.
    6. Daniel Karabekyan, 2016. "Strategic Behavior in Exhaustive Ballot Voting: What Can We Learn from the FIFA World Cup 2018 and 2022 Host Elections?," HSE Working papers WP BRP 130/EC/2016, National Research University Higher School of Economics.

  22. Sanver, M. Remzi & Selçuk, Özer, 2010. "A characterization of the Copeland solution," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 354-355, June.

    Cited by:

    1. Susumu Cato, 2015. "Conditions on social-preference cycles," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(1), pages 1-13, July.

  23. İpek Özkal-Sanver & M. Sanver, 2010. "A new monotonicity condition for tournament solutions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(3), pages 439-452, September.

    Cited by:

    1. Weibin Han & Adrian Deemen, 2019. "A refinement of the uncovered set in tournaments," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(1), pages 107-121, February.

  24. Murat Çengelci & M. Sanver, 2010. "Simple Collective Identity Functions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(4), pages 417-443, April.

    Cited by:

    1. Alcantud, José Carlos R. & Laruelle, Annick, 2018. "Collective identity functions with status quo," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 159-166.
    2. Cho, Wonki Jo & Park, Chang Woo, 2018. "Fractional group identification," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 66-75.
    3. Cho, Wonki Jo & Ju, Biung-Ghi, 2020. "Group identification: An integrated approach," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 171-181.
    4. Dimitrov, Dinko & Puppe, Clemens, 2009. "Non-bossy Social Classification," Sustainable Development Papers 55328, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    5. Stefano Vannucci, 2007. "Virtuous Circles and Contested Identities: on Collective Identification Procedures with Independent Qualified Certification," Department of Economics University of Siena 501, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    6. Cho, Wonki Jo, 2018. "Fairness in group identification," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 35-40.
    7. Dinko Dimitrov & Thierry Marchant & Debasis Mishra, 2012. "Separability and aggregation of equivalence relations," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 51(1), pages 191-212, September.
    8. José Carlos R. Alcantud & Annick Laruelle, 2020. "Independent collective identity functions as voting rules," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 89(1), pages 107-119, July.
    9. Biung-Ghi Ju, 2013. "On the characterization of liberalism by Samet and Schmeidler," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(2), pages 359-366, February.
    10. Balázs Sziklai, 2018. "How to identify experts in a community?," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 47(1), pages 155-173, March.
    11. Wonki Jo Cho & Alejandro Saporiti, 2015. "Incentives, Fairness, and Efficiency in Group Identification," Economics Discussion Paper Series 1501, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    12. Yukinori Iwata, 2016. "The possibility of Arrovian social choice with the process of nomination," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 81(4), pages 535-552, November.
    13. Rodríguez Alcantud, José Carlos & Laruelle, Annick, 2016. "To disqualify or not to qualify: This is the other question," IKERLANAK info:eu-repo/grantAgreeme, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Fundamentos del Análisis Económico I.
    14. Denis Bouyssou & M. Remzi Sanver, 2022. "Simple but Powerful Models of Stereotype Formation," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 73(6), pages 1055-1068.

  25. Özyurt, Selçuk & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2009. "A general impossibility result on strategy-proof social choice hyperfunctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 880-892, July.

    Cited by:

    1. Jean-François Laslier & Matias Nunez & M. Remzi Sanver, 2021. "A solution to the two-person implementation problem," Post-Print hal-03498370, HAL.
    2. Aleskerov, Fuad & Karabekyan, Daniel & Sanver, M. Remzi & Yakuba, Vyacheslav, 2012. "On the manipulability of voting rules: The case of 4 and 5 alternatives," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 67-73.
    3. Brandt, Felix & Saile, Christian & Stricker, Christian, 2022. "Strategyproof social choice when preferences and outcomes may contain ties," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    4. Carmelo Rodríguez-à lvarez, 2017. "On single-peakedness and strategy-proofness: ties between adjacent alternatives," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 37(3), pages 1966-1974.
    5. 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.
    6. Salvador Barberà, 2010. "Strategy-proof social choice," Working Papers 420, Barcelona School of Economics.
    7. Shin Sato, 2014. "A fundamental structure of strategy-proof social choice correspondences with restricted preferences over alternatives," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(4), pages 831-851, April.
    8. Fuad Aleskerov & Daniel Karabekyan & Remzi Sanver & Vyacheslav Yakuba, 2009. "Evaluating the Degree of Manipulability of Certain Aggregation Procedures under Multiple Choices," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, issue 1-2, pages 37-61.
    9. Fuad Aleskerov & Daniel Karabekyan & M. Sanver & Vyacheslav Yakuba, 2011. "An individual manipulability of positional voting rules," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 2(4), pages 431-446, December.
    10. Shurojit Chatterji & Arunava Sen, 2011. "Tops-only domains," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 46(2), pages 255-282, February.
    11. Sato, Shin, 2013. "A sufficient condition for the equivalence of strategy-proofness and nonmanipulability by preferences adjacent to the sincere one," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(1), pages 259-278.
    12. Kutlu, Levent, 2007. "Arrovian aggregation for preferences over sets," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 255-258, May.
    13. Sanver, M. Remzi, 2007. "A characterization of superdictatorial domains for strategy-proof social choice functions," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 257-260, December.
    14. Bora Erdamar & M. Sanver, 2009. "Choosers as extension axioms," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 67(4), pages 375-384, October.

  26. Fuad Aleskerov & Daniel Karabekyan & Remzi Sanver & Vyacheslav Yakuba, 2009. "Evaluating the Degree of Manipulability of Certain Aggregation Procedures under Multiple Choices," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, issue 1-2, pages 37-61.

    Cited by:

    1. Bednay, Dezső & Moskalenko, Anna & Tasnádi, Attila, 2019. "Dictatorship versus manipulability," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 72-76.
    2. Yuliya A. Veselova, 2020. "Does Incomplete Information Reduce Manipulability?," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 523-548, June.
    3. Karabekyan, D., 2022. "On the stability of results for aggregation procedures," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 57(5), pages 24-37.
    4. Yuliya A. Veselova, 2016. "Does Incomplete Information Reduce Manipulability?," HSE Working papers WP BRP 152/EC/2016, National Research University Higher School of Economics.

  27. M. Sanver & William Zwicker, 2009. "One-way monotonicity as a form of strategy-proofness," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 38(4), pages 553-574, November.

    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Umut Keskin & M. Remzi Sanver & H. Berkay Tosunlu, 2021. "Recovering non-monotonicity problems of voting rules," Post-Print hal-03250759, HAL.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Brandl, Florian & Brandt, Felix & Hofbauer, Johannes, 2019. "Welfare maximization entices participation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 308-314.
    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. M. Sanver, 2009. "Strategy-proofness of the plurality rule over restricted domains," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 39(3), pages 461-471, June.
    9. Jacqueline Harding, 2023. "Proxy Selection in Transitive Proxy Voting," Papers 2307.02627, arXiv.org.
    10. Fasil Alemante & Donald E. Campbell & Jerry S. Kelly, 2016. "Characterizing the resolute part of monotonic social choice correspondences," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 62(4), pages 765-783, October.
    11. Jacqueline Harding, 2022. "Proxy selection in transitive proxy voting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 58(1), pages 69-99, January.
    12. Cervone, Davide P. & Dai, Ronghua & Gnoutcheff, Daniel & Lanterman, Grant & Mackenzie, Andrew & Morse, Ari & Srivastava, Nikhil & Zwicker, William S., 2012. "Voting with rubber bands, weights, and strings," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 11-27.

  28. Can, Burak & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2009. "Stereotype formation as trait aggregation," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 226-237, September.

    Cited by:

    1. Denis Bouyssou & M. Remzi Sanver, 2022. "Simple but Powerful Models of Stereotype Formation," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 73(6), pages 1055-1068.

  29. Burak Can & Bora Erdamar & M. Sanver, 2009. "Expected Utility Consistent Extensions of Preferences," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 123-144, August.

    Cited by:

    1. Matias Nunez & Jean-François Laslier, 2015. "Bargaining through Approval," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) halshs-01310223, HAL.
    2. Ulle Endriss, 2013. "Sincerity and manipulation under approval voting," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 74(3), pages 335-355, March.
    3. Bora Erdamar & M. Sanver, 2009. "Choosers as extension axioms," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 67(4), pages 375-384, October.

  30. M. Sanver & Özer Selçuk, 2009. "Sophisticated preference aggregation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 33(1), pages 73-86, June.

    Cited by:

    1. Franz Dietrich & Christian List, 2017. "Probabilistic opinion pooling generalized. Part one: General agendas," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-01485792, HAL.
    2. Conal Duddy & Ashley Piggins, 2018. "On some oligarchy results when social preference is fuzzy," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(4), pages 717-735, December.

  31. M. Sanver, 2009. "Strategy-proofness of the plurality rule over restricted domains," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 39(3), pages 461-471, June.

    Cited by:

    1. Susumu Cato, 2011. "Pareto principles, positive responsiveness, and majority decisions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(4), pages 503-518, October.
    2. Kentaro Hatsumi & Dolors Berga & Shigehiro Serizawa, 2011. "A maximal domain for strategy-proof and no-vetoer rules in the multi-object choice model," ISER Discussion Paper 0809, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University, revised Feb 2013.
    3. 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.
    4. Ollár, Mariann, 2010. "Monotonicity and robustness of majority rule," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 288-290, May.
    5. Sarvesh Bandhu & Bishwajyoti Mondal & Anup Pramanik, 2021. "Strategy-proofness of the unanimity with status-quo rule over restricted domains," Working Papers 2021-02, Shiv Nadar University, Department of Economics.
    6. Hiroki Saitoh, 2022. "Characterization of tie-breaking plurality rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 59(1), pages 139-173, July.
    7. Shashwat Khare & Ton Storcken, 2022. "Collective choice rules on restricted domains based on a priori information," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 59(3), pages 585-604, October.
    8. Kelly, Jerry S. & Qi, Shaofang, 2016. "Characterizing plurality rule on a fixed population," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 39-41.
    9. Sanver, M. Remzi, 2008. "Nash implementability of the plurality rule over restricted domains," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 99(2), pages 298-300, May.
    10. Puppe, Clemens & Tasnádi, Attila, 2006. "Nash implementable domains for the Borda count," MPRA Paper 775, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Fasil Alemante & Donald E. Campbell & Jerry S. Kelly, 2016. "Characterizing the resolute part of monotonic social choice correspondences," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 62(4), pages 765-783, October.
    12. Christian Basteck, 2022. "Characterising scoring rules by their solution in iteratively undominated strategies," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 74(1), pages 161-208, July.
    13. Dezső Bednay & Attila Tasnádi & Sonal Yadav, 2022. "On the manipulability of a class of social choice functions: plurality kth rules," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(1), pages 127-148, March.

  32. Bora Erdamar & M. Sanver, 2009. "Choosers as extension axioms," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 67(4), pages 375-384, October.

    Cited by:

    1. Brandt, Felix & Lederer, Patrick, 2023. "Characterizing the top cycle via strategyproofness," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), May.
    2. Brandt, Felix & Saile, Christian & Stricker, Christian, 2022. "Strategyproof social choice when preferences and outcomes may contain ties," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    3. 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.
    4. Sinan Ertemel & Levent Kutlu & M. Remzi Sanver, 2015. "Voting games of resolute social choice correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(1), pages 187-201, June.
    5. Ulle Endriss, 2013. "Sincerity and manipulation under approval voting," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 74(3), pages 335-355, March.
    6. Felix Brandt & Patrick Lederer, 2021. "Characterizing the Top Cycle via Strategyproofness," Papers 2108.04622, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2023.

  33. M. Sanver, 2009. "Characterizations of majoritarianism: a unified approach," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 33(1), pages 159-171, June.

    Cited by:

    1. Bonifacio Llamazares, 2013. "On the structure of voting systems between two alternatives," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 17(3), pages 239-248, September.
    2. Susumu Cato, 2011. "Pareto principles, positive responsiveness, and majority decisions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(4), pages 503-518, October.
    3. Uuganbaatar Ninjbat, 2019. "Monotonicity and qualified majority rules," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 7(2), pages 209-220, December.
    4. Daniela Bubboloni & Michele Gori, 2014. "Anonymous and neutral majority rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 43(2), pages 377-401, August.
    5. Ali Ihsan Ozkes & M. Remzi Sanver, 2016. "Absolute Qualified Majoritarianism: How Does the Threshold Matter?," AMSE Working Papers 1643, Aix-Marseille School of Economics, France.
    6. Nicolas Houy, 2007. "A new characterization of absolute qualified majority voting," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(4), pages 1-8.
    7. Kivinen, Steven, 2023. "On the manipulability of equitable voting rules," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 286-302.
    8. Adrian Miroiu, 2018. "Single-profile axiomatizations of the plurality and the simple majority rules," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 38(1), pages 13-19.
    9. Gersbach, Hans, 2017. "Flexible Majority Rules in democracyville: A guided tour," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 37-43.
    10. Adrian Miroiu, 2021. "Majority Voting and Higher-Order Societies," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(5), pages 983-999, October.

  34. Selçuk Özyurt & M. Sanver, 2008. "Strategy-proof resolute social choice correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 30(1), pages 89-101, January.

    Cited by:

    1. Egor Ianovski & Mark C. Wilson, 2019. "Manipulability of consular election rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 52(2), pages 363-393, February.
    2. Salvador Barberà, 2010. "Strategy-proof social choice," Working Papers 420, Barcelona School of Economics.
    3. Sinan Ertemel & Levent Kutlu & M. Remzi Sanver, 2015. "Voting games of resolute social choice correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(1), pages 187-201, June.
    4. Emre Doğan & M. Sanver, 2008. "Arrovian impossibilities in aggregating preferences over non-resolute outcomes," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 30(3), pages 495-506, April.
    5. Dogan, Emre & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2007. "On the alternating use of "unanimity" and "surjectivity" in the Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 140-143, July.
    6. Özyurt, Selçuk & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2009. "A general impossibility result on strategy-proof social choice hyperfunctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 880-892, July.
    7. Shurojit Chatterji & Arunava Sen, 2011. "Tops-only domains," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 46(2), pages 255-282, February.
    8. Alexander Reffgen, 2011. "Generalizing the Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem: partial preferences, the degree of manipulation, and multi-valuedness," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 37(1), pages 39-59, June.
    9. Andreas Darmann, 2019. "Manipulability in a group activity selection problem," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 52(3), pages 527-557, March.
    10. Bora Erdamar & M. Sanver, 2009. "Choosers as extension axioms," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 67(4), pages 375-384, October.

  35. Sanver, M. Remzi, 2008. "Nash implementability of the plurality rule over restricted domains," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 99(2), pages 298-300, May.

    Cited by:

    1. Ollár, Mariann, 2010. "Monotonicity and robustness of majority rule," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 288-290, May.
    2. Mehmet Barlo & Nuh Aygün Dalkıran, 2022. "Computational implementation," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(4), pages 605-633, December.

  36. Emre Doğan & M. Sanver, 2008. "Arrovian impossibilities in aggregating preferences over non-resolute outcomes," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 30(3), pages 495-506, April.

    Cited by:

    1. Bora Erdamar & M. Sanver, 2009. "Choosers as extension axioms," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 67(4), pages 375-384, October.

  37. Murat Çengelci & M. Sanver, 2007. "Is abstention an escape from Arrow’s theorem?," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 28(3), pages 439-442, April.

    Cited by:

    1. Jianxin Yi, 2021. "Nash implementation via mechanisms that allow for abstentions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 91(2), pages 279-288, September.

  38. Dogan, Emre & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2007. "On the alternating use of "unanimity" and "surjectivity" in the Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 140-143, July.

    Cited by:

    1. Anup Pramanik & Arunava Sen, 2016. "Pairwise partition graphs and strategy-proof social choice in the exogenous indifference class model," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(1), pages 1-24, June.
    2. Anup Pramanik, 2014. "Further Results on Dictatorial Domains," ISER Discussion Paper 0899, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    3. Sanver, M. Remzi, 2008. "Nash implementability of the plurality rule over restricted domains," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 99(2), pages 298-300, May.
    4. Kutlu, Levent, 2007. "Superdictatorial domains for monotonic social choice functions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 97(2), pages 151-154, November.

  39. Benoit, Jean Pierre & Ok, Efe A. & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2007. "On combining implementable social choice rules," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 20-30, July.

    Cited by:

    1. Doğan, Battal, 2016. "Nash-implementation of the no-envy solution on symmetric domains of economies," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 165-171.
    2. Remzi Sanver, M., 2006. "Nash implementation of the majority rule," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 369-372, June.
    3. Kutlu, Levent, 2008. "Intersection of Nash implementable social choice correspondences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 255-257, March.

  40. Ugur Ozdemir & M. Sanver, 2007. "Dictatorial domains in preference aggregation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 28(1), pages 61-76, January.

    Cited by:

    1. Ceyhun Coban & M. Sanver, 2014. "Social choice without the Pareto principle under weak independence," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 43(4), pages 953-961, December.
    2. Roy, Souvik & Storcken, Ton, 2019. "A characterization of possibility domains in strategic voting," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 46-55.
    3. Justin Kruger & M. Remzi Sanver, 2018. "Restricting the domain allows for weaker independence," Post-Print hal-02517236, HAL.
    4. Susumu Cato, 2018. "Collective rationality and decisiveness coherence," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 50(2), pages 305-328, February.
    5. Kruger, Justin & Remzi Sanver, M., 2018. "Which dictatorial domains are superdictatorial? A complete characterization for the Gibbard–Satterthwaite impossibility," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 32-34.
    6. Yukinori Iwata, 2009. "Consequences, opportunities, and Arrovian impossibility theorems with consequentialist domains," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 32(3), pages 513-531, March.
    7. Kutlu, Levent, 2007. "Superdictatorial domains for monotonic social choice functions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 97(2), pages 151-154, November.
    8. Sanver, M. Remzi, 2007. "A characterization of superdictatorial domains for strategy-proof social choice functions," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 257-260, December.

  41. Sanver, M. Remzi, 2007. "A characterization of superdictatorial domains for strategy-proof social choice functions," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 257-260, December.

    Cited by:

    1. Gopakumar Achuthankutty & Souvik Roy, 2018. "Dictatorship on top-circular domains," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 85(3), pages 479-493, October.
    2. Geng, Shuai & Lin, Lijun, 2018. "The extensible evaluation framework of urban green house gas emission reduction responsibility: A case of Shandong province in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 171-184.
    3. Kruger, Justin & Remzi Sanver, M., 2018. "Which dictatorial domains are superdictatorial? A complete characterization for the Gibbard–Satterthwaite impossibility," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 32-34.
    4. Sato, Shin, 2013. "A sufficient condition for the equivalence of strategy-proofness and nonmanipulability by preferences adjacent to the sincere one," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(1), pages 259-278.
    5. Kutlu, Levent, 2007. "Superdictatorial domains for monotonic social choice functions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 97(2), pages 151-154, November.

  42. Steven Brams & D. Kilgour & M. Sanver, 2007. "A minimax procedure for electing committees," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 132(3), pages 401-420, September.

    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. Murat Çengelci & M. Sanver, 2010. "Simple Collective Identity Functions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(4), pages 417-443, April.
    3. Grandi, Umberto & Lang, Jérôme & Ozkes, Ali & Airiau, Stéphane, 2020. "Voting behavior in one-shot and iterative multiple referenda," SocArXiv y4m6r, Center for Open Science.
    4. Eklund, Patrik & Rusinowska, Agnieszka & De Swart, Harrie, 2007. "Consensus reaching in committees," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 178(1), pages 185-193, April.
    5. Jean-François Laslier & Karine van Der Straeten, 2016. "Strategic voting in multi-winner elections with approval balloting: a theory for large electorates," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) halshs-01518277, HAL.
    6. Huremović, Kenan & Ozkes, Ali I., 2022. "Polarization in networks: Identification–alienation framework," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    7. Markus Brill & Jean-François Laslier & Piotr Skowron, 2018. "Multiwinner approval rules as apportionment methods," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) halshs-02087610, HAL.
    8. Eyal Baharad & Jacob Goldberger & Moshe Koppel & Shmuel Nitzan, 2011. "Beyond Condorcet: Optimal Aggregation Rules Using Voting Records," CESifo Working Paper Series 3323, CESifo.
    9. 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.
    10. Clark Bowman & Jonathan Hodge & Ada Yu, 2014. "The potential of iterative voting to solve the separability problem in referendum elections," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(1), pages 111-124, June.
    11. 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.
    12. Steven J. Brams & D. Marc Kilgour, 2014. "Satisfaction Approval Voting," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Rudolf Fara & Dennis Leech & Maurice Salles (ed.), Voting Power and Procedures, edition 127, pages 323-346, Springer.
    13. Egor Ianovski, 2022. "Electing a committee with dominance constraints," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 318(2), pages 985-1000, November.
    14. D. Marc Kilgour, 2016. "Approval elections with a variable number of winners," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 81(2), pages 199-211, August.
    15. Adam Graham-Squire & David McCune, 2023. "Paradoxical Oddities in Two Multiwinner Elections from Scotland," Papers 2305.20078, arXiv.org.
    16. Gilbert Laffond & Jean Laine, 2013. "Unanimity and the Anscombe’s Paradox," Working Papers 201301, Murat Sertel Center for Advanced Economic Studies, Istanbul Bilgi University.
    17. Klamler, Christian & Pferschy, Ulrich & Ruzika, Stefan, 2012. "Committee selection under weight constraints," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 48-56.
    18. Duddy, Conal, 2014. "Electing a representative committee by approval ballot: An impossibility result," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 124(1), pages 14-16.
    19. Christian Klamler & Daniel Eckert, 2008. "Antipodality in committee selection," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(1), pages 1-5.
    20. Andreas Darmann & Christian Klamler, 2014. "Knapsack cost sharing," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 18(3), pages 219-241, September.
    21. Jean-François Laslier & Karine van Der Straeten, 2015. "Strategic Voting under Committee Approval: A Theory," Working Papers halshs-01168767, HAL.
    22. Brams, Steven J. & Kilgour, D. Marc & Potthoff, Richard F., 2017. "Multi winner Approval Voting: An Apportionment Approach," MPRA Paper 77931, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    23. Gilbert Laffond & Jean Lainé, 2012. "Searching for a Compromise in Multiple Referendum," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 551-569, July.
    24. Kamesh Munagala & Yiheng Shen & Kangning Wang & Zhiyi Wang, 2021. "Approximate Core for Committee Selection via Multilinear Extension and Market Clearing," Papers 2110.12499, arXiv.org.
    25. Gilbert Laffond & Jean Lainé, 2009. "Condorcet choice and the Ostrogorski paradox," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 32(2), pages 317-333, February.
    26. Haris Aziz & Markus Brill & Vincent Conitzer & Edith Elkind & Rupert Freeman & Toby Walsh, 2017. "Justified representation in approval-based committee voting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(2), pages 461-485, February.
    27. Chris Dong & Patrick Lederer, 2023. "Characterizations of Sequential Valuation Rules," Papers 2302.11890, arXiv.org.
    28. Tuğçe Çuhadaroğlu & Jean Lainé, 2012. "Pareto efficiency in multiple referendum," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 72(4), pages 525-536, April.
    29. Hayrullah Dindar & Gilbert Laffond & Jean Lainé, 2021. "Referendum Paradox for Party-List Proportional Representation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 191-220, February.
    30. Sanver, M. Remzi & Selçuk, Özer, 2010. "A characterization of the Copeland solution," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 354-355, June.
    31. Steven Brams & Michael Hansen & Michael Orrison, 2006. "Dead Heat: The 2006 Public Choice Society Election," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 128(3), pages 361-366, September.
    32. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Ðura-Georg Granić, 2012. "Two field experiments on Approval Voting in Germany," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 39(1), pages 171-205, June.
    33. Clinton Gubong Gassi, 2024. "Weighted scoring rules for selecting a compatible committee," Working Papers 2024-04, CRESE.

  43. İpek Özkal-Sanver & M. Sanver, 2006. "Nash implementation via hyperfunctions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 26(3), pages 607-623, June.

    Cited by:

    1. Jean-François Laslier & Matias Nunez & M. Remzi Sanver, 2021. "A solution to the two-person implementation problem," Post-Print hal-03498370, HAL.
    2. Emre Doğan & M. Sanver, 2008. "Arrovian impossibilities in aggregating preferences over non-resolute outcomes," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 30(3), pages 495-506, April.
    3. Yi, Jianxin, 2011. "Implementation via mechanisms with transfers," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 65-70, January.
    4. M. Remzi Sanver, 2018. "Implementing Pareto Optimal and Individually Rational Outcomes by Veto," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 223-233, April.

  44. M. Sanver, 2006. "Nash implementing non-monotonic social choice rules by awards," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 28(2), pages 453-460, June.

    Cited by:

    1. Claudio Mezzetti & Ludovic Renou, 2009. "Implementation in Mixed Nash Equilibrium," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 902, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    2. Jean-François Laslier & Matias Nunez & M. Remzi Sanver, 2021. "A solution to the two-person implementation problem," Post-Print hal-03498370, HAL.
    3. Cabrales, Antonio & Serrano, Roberto, 2011. "Implementation in adaptive better-response dynamics: Towards a general theory of bounded rationality in mechanisms," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 360-374.
    4. Lombardi, Michele & Yoshihara, Naoki & 吉原, 直毅 & ヨシハラ, ナオキ, 2011. "A Full Characterization of Nash Implementation with Strategy Space Reduction," Discussion Paper Series a548, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    5. Yi, Jianxin, 2011. "Implementation via mechanisms with transfers," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 65-70, January.
    6. Yi-Chun Chen & Takashi Kunimoto & Yifei Sun & Siyang Xiong, 2021. "Maskin Meets Abreu and Matsushima," Papers 2110.06551, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2022.
    7. M. Remzi Sanver, 2018. "Implementing Pareto Optimal and Individually Rational Outcomes by Veto," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 223-233, April.
    8. Núñez, Matías & Pimienta, Carlos & Xefteris, Dimitrios, 2022. "On the implementation of the median," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    9. Sanver, M. Remzi, 2008. "Nash implementability of the plurality rule over restricted domains," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 99(2), pages 298-300, May.
    10. M. Remzi Sanver, 2017. "Nash implementing social choice rules with restricted ranges," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 21(1), pages 65-72, March.
    11. Artemov, Georgy, 2014. "An impossibility result for virtual implementation with status quo," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 122(3), pages 380-385.
    12. İpek Özkal-Sanver & M. Sanver, 2010. "A new monotonicity condition for tournament solutions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(3), pages 439-452, September.
    13. Artemov, Georgy, 2015. "Time and Nash implementation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 229-236.
    14. Massó, Jordi & Nicolò, Antonio, 2008. "Efficient and stable collective choices under gregarious preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 591-611, November.
    15. Jordi Massó & Antonio Nicolò, 2004. "Efficient and Stable Collective Choices under Crowding Preferences," UFAE and IAE Working Papers 638.04, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Anàlisi Econòmica (UAB) and Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica (CSIC).
    16. Benoît, Jean-Pierre & Ok, Efe A., 2008. "Nash implementation without no-veto power," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 51-67, September.

  45. Asan, Goksel & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2006. "Maskin monotonic aggregation rules," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 179-183, May.

    Cited by:

    1. Matías Núñez & M. Remzi Sanver, 2021. "On the subgame perfect implementability of voting rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(2), pages 421-441, February.
    2. Bonifacio Llamazares, 2013. "On the structure of voting systems between two alternatives," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 17(3), pages 239-248, September.
    3. Susumu Cato, 2011. "Pareto principles, positive responsiveness, and majority decisions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(4), pages 503-518, October.
    4. Uuganbaatar Ninjbat, 2019. "Monotonicity and qualified majority rules," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 7(2), pages 209-220, December.
    5. Campbell, Donald E. & Kelly, Jerry S., 2010. "Strategy-proofness and weighted voting," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 15-23, July.
    6. Perry, Jonathan & Powers, Robert C., 2008. "Aggregation rules that satisfy anonymity and neutrality," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 100(1), pages 108-110, July.
    7. Matías Núñez & Giacomo Valletta, 2015. "The informational basis of scoring rules," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 19(4), pages 279-297, December.
    8. Daniela Bubboloni & Michele Gori, 2014. "Anonymous and neutral majority rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 43(2), pages 377-401, August.
    9. Ali Ihsan Ozkes & M. Remzi Sanver, 2016. "Absolute Qualified Majoritarianism: How Does the Threshold Matter?," AMSE Working Papers 1643, Aix-Marseille School of Economics, France.
    10. Susumu Cato & Stéphane Gonzalez & Eric Rémila & Philippe Solal, 2022. "Approval voting versus proportional threshold methods: so far and yet so near," Working Papers halshs-03858356, HAL.
    11. Nicolas Houy, 2007. "A new characterization of absolute qualified majority voting," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(4), pages 1-8.
    12. Houy, Nicolas, 2007. "A characterization for qualified majority voting rules," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 17-24, July.
    13. Kivinen, Steven, 2023. "On the manipulability of equitable voting rules," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 286-302.
    14. Susumu Cato & Daisuke Hirata, 2010. "Collective choice rules and collective rationality: a unified method of characterizations," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 34(4), pages 611-630, April.
    15. Can, Burak & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2009. "Stereotype formation as trait aggregation," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 226-237, September.
    16. Powers, R.C., 2010. "Maskin monotonic aggregation rules and partial anonymity," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 12-14, January.
    17. Hoots, Lucas & Powers, Robert C., 2015. "Anonymous and positively responsive aggregation rules," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 9-14.
    18. Nuñez, M. & Valletta, G., 2012. "The information simplicity of scoring rules," Research Memorandum 011, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    19. Perry, Jonathan & Powers, Robert C., 2010. "Anonymity, monotonicity, and quota pair systems," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 57-60, July.
    20. Mateusz Krukowski, 2023. "Majority rule as a unique voting method in elections with multiple candidates," Papers 2310.12983, arXiv.org.
    21. M. Sanver, 2009. "Characterizations of majoritarianism: a unified approach," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 33(1), pages 159-171, June.

  46. Remzi Sanver, M., 2006. "Nash implementation of the majority rule," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 369-372, June.

    Cited by:

    1. Bonifacio Llamazares, 2013. "On the structure of voting systems between two alternatives," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 17(3), pages 239-248, September.
    2. Campbell, Donald E. & Kelly, Jerry S., 2010. "Strategy-proofness and weighted voting," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 15-23, July.
    3. Bandhu, Sarvesh & Lahiri, Abhinaba & Pramanik, Anup, 2020. "A characterization of status quo rules in the binary social choice model," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    4. M. Sanver, 2009. "Characterizations of majoritarianism: a unified approach," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 33(1), pages 159-171, June.

  47. İpek Özkal-Sanver & M. Sanver, 2006. "Ensuring Pareto Optimality by Referendum Voting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 27(1), pages 211-219, August.

    Cited by:

    1. David S. Ahn & Santiago Oliveros, 2010. "Combinatorial Voting," Levine's Working Paper Archive 661465000000000263, David K. Levine.
    2. Grandi, Umberto & Lang, Jérôme & Ozkes, Ali & Airiau, Stéphane, 2020. "Voting behavior in one-shot and iterative multiple referenda," SocArXiv y4m6r, Center for Open Science.
    3. Fatma Aslan & Hayrullah Dindar & Jean Lainé, 2021. "When are committees of Condorcet winners Condorcet winning committees?," Post-Print hal-03335584, HAL.
    4. Jean Lainé & Ali Ihsan Ozkes & Remzi Sanver, 2016. "Hyper-stable social welfare functions," Post-Print hal-01505809, HAL.
    5. Gilbert Laffond & Jean Lainé, 2014. "Triple-consistent social choice and the majority rule," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 22(2), pages 784-799, July.
    6. Hayrullah Dindar & Jean Lainé, 2022. "Compromise in combinatorial vote," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 59(1), pages 175-206, July.
    7. Lang, Jrme & Xia, Lirong, 2009. "Sequential composition of voting rules in multi-issue domains," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 304-324, May.
    8. Benoît, Jean-Pierre & Kornhauser, Lewis A., 2010. "Only a dictatorship is efficient," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 261-270, November.
    9. Gilbert Laffond & Jean Lainé, 2012. "Searching for a Compromise in Multiple Referendum," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 551-569, July.
    10. Tuğçe Çuhadaroğlu & Jean Lainé, 2012. "Pareto efficiency in multiple referendum," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 72(4), pages 525-536, April.
    11. Hayrullah Dindar & Gilbert Laffond & Jean Lainé, 2021. "Referendum Paradox for Party-List Proportional Representation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 191-220, February.

  48. M. Sanver, 2005. "Equilibrium allocations of endowment-pretension games in public good economies," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 9(4), pages 307-316, December.

    Cited by:

    1. Sinan Ertemel & Levent Kutlu & M. Remzi Sanver, 2015. "Voting games of resolute social choice correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(1), pages 187-201, June.
    2. Ozkal-Sanver, Ipek & Remzi Sanver, M., 2005. "Implementing matching rules by type pretension mechanisms," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 50(3), pages 304-317, November.

  49. Orhan Erdem & M. Sanver, 2005. "Minimal monotonic extensions of scoring rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 25(1), pages 31-42, October.

    Cited by:

    1. Matías Núñez & M. Remzi Sanver, 2021. "On the subgame perfect implementability of voting rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(2), pages 421-441, February.
    2. Pablo Amorós, 2009. "Unequivocal majority and Maskin-monotonicity," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 33(4), pages 521-532, November.
    3. Battal Doğan & Semih Koray, 2015. "Maskin-monotonic scoring rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 44(2), pages 423-432, February.
    4. Sanver, M. Remzi, 2008. "Nash implementability of the plurality rule over restricted domains," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 99(2), pages 298-300, May.
    5. İpek Özkal-Sanver, 2013. "Minimal conversely consistent extension of the men-optimal solution," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(1), pages 89-99, January.
    6. M. Remzi Sanver, 2017. "Nash implementing social choice rules with restricted ranges," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 21(1), pages 65-72, March.
    7. Puppe, Clemens & Tasnádi, Attila, 2006. "Nash implementable domains for the Borda count," MPRA Paper 775, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. İpek Özkal-Sanver & M. Sanver, 2010. "A new monotonicity condition for tournament solutions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(3), pages 439-452, September.
    9. M. Sanver & William Zwicker, 2009. "One-way monotonicity as a form of strategy-proofness," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 38(4), pages 553-574, November.
    10. Remzi Sanver, M., 2006. "Nash implementation of the majority rule," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 369-372, June.

  50. Murat R. Sertel & M. Remzi Sanver, 2004. "Strong equilibrium outcomes of voting games ¶are the generalized Condorcet winners," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 22(2), pages 331-347, April.
    See citations under working paper version above.
  51. İpek Özkal-Sanver & M. Remzi Sanver, 2004. "Efficiency in the Degree of Compromise: A New Axiom for Social Choice," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 375-380, July.

    Cited by:

    1. Eric Kamwa, 2023. "On two voting systems that combine approval and preferences: fallback voting and preference approval voting," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 196(1), pages 169-205, July.
    2. Vincent Merlin & İpek Özkal Sanver & M. Remzi Sanver, 2019. "Compromise Rules Revisited," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 63-78, February.
    3. Olivier Cailloux & Beatrice Napolitano & M. Remzi Sanver, 2023. "Compromising as an equal loss principle," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 27(3), pages 547-560, September.
    4. Gilbert Laffond & Jean Lainé, 2012. "Searching for a Compromise in Multiple Referendum," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 551-569, July.

  52. Barış Kaymak & M. Remzi Sanver, 2003. "Sets of alternatives as Condorcet winners," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 20(3), pages 477-494, June.

    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. Salvador Barberà & Danilo Coelho, 2015. "Balancing the Power to Appoint Officers," Working Papers 696, Barcelona School of Economics.
    3. Fatma Aslan & Hayrullah Dindar & Jean Lainé, 2021. "When are committees of Condorcet winners Condorcet winning committees?," Post-Print hal-03335584, HAL.
    4. Aleskerov, Fuad & Karabekyan, Daniel & Sanver, M. Remzi & Yakuba, Vyacheslav, 2012. "On the manipulability of voting rules: The case of 4 and 5 alternatives," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 67-73.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Mostapha Diss & Muhammad Mahajne, 2019. "Social Acceptability of Condorcet Committees," Working Papers 1906, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    8. 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.
    9. Kamwa, Eric, 2017. "On stable rules for selecting committees," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 36-44.
    10. 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.
    11. Salvador Barberà & Danilo Coelho, 2004. "On the rule of K names," UFAE and IAE Working Papers 636.04, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Anàlisi Econòmica (UAB) and Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica (CSIC), revised 13 Mar 2007.
    12. Burak Can & Bora Erdamar & M. Sanver, 2009. "Expected Utility Consistent Extensions of Preferences," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 123-144, August.
    13. Hayrullah Dindar & Jean Lainé, 2022. "Compromise in combinatorial vote," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 59(1), pages 175-206, July.
    14. Edith Elkind & Jérôme Lang & Abdallah Saffidine, 2015. "Condorcet winning sets," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 44(3), pages 493-517, March.
    15. Sinan Ertemel & Levent Kutlu & M. Remzi Sanver, 2015. "Voting games of resolute social choice correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(1), pages 187-201, June.
    16. İpek Özkal-Sanver & M. Sanver, 2006. "Nash implementation via hyperfunctions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 26(3), pages 607-623, June.
    17. Eric Kamwa, 2022. "The Condorcet Loser Criterion in Committee Selection," Working Papers hal-03880064, HAL.
    18. Özyurt, Selçuk & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2009. "A general impossibility result on strategy-proof social choice hyperfunctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 880-892, July.
    19. Darmann, Andreas, 2018. "A social choice approach to ordinal group activity selection," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 57-66.
    20. Andreas Darmann, 2016. "It is difficult to tell if there is a Condorcet spanning tree," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 84(1), pages 93-104, August.
    21. Eric Kamwa & Vincent Merlin, 2018. "Coincidence of Condorcet committees," Post-Print hal-01631176, HAL.
    22. Joseph, Rémy-Robert, 2010. "Making choices with a binary relation: Relative choice axioms and transitive closures," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(2), pages 865-877, December.
    23. Darmann, Andreas, 2013. "How hard is it to tell which is a Condorcet committee?," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 282-292.
    24. Bora Erdamar & M. Sanver, 2009. "Choosers as extension axioms," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 67(4), pages 375-384, October.

  53. Asan, Goksel & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2002. "Another characterization of the majority rule," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 409-413, May.

    Cited by:

    1. Bonifacio Llamazares, 2013. "On the structure of voting systems between two alternatives," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 17(3), pages 239-248, September.
    2. Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit, 2020. "Axioms for Defeat in Democratic Elections," Papers 2008.08451, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2023.
    3. Susumu Cato, 2011. "Pareto principles, positive responsiveness, and majority decisions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(4), pages 503-518, October.
    4. Miroiu, Adrian, 2004. "Characterizing majority rule: from profiles to societies," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 85(3), pages 359-363, December.
    5. Gersbach, Hans & Tejada, Oriol, 2020. "Semi-flexible Majority Rules for Public Good Provision," CEPR Discussion Papers 15099, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Yi, Jianxin, 2005. "A complete characterization of majority rules," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 109-112, April.
    7. Woeginger, Gerhard J., 2005. "More on the majority rule: Profiles, societies, and responsiveness," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 7-11, July.
    8. Matías Núñez & Giacomo Valletta, 2015. "The informational basis of scoring rules," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 19(4), pages 279-297, December.
    9. Quesada, Antonio, 2009. "Parallel axiomatizations of majority and unanimity," MPRA Paper 19401, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. İpek Özkal-Sanver & M. Sanver, 2006. "Ensuring Pareto Optimality by Referendum Voting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 27(1), pages 211-219, August.
    11. José Carlos R. Alcantud, 2020. "Simple Majorities with Voice but No Vote," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(5), pages 803-822, October.
    12. Daniela Bubboloni & Michele Gori, 2014. "Anonymous and neutral majority rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 43(2), pages 377-401, August.
    13. Ali Ihsan Ozkes & M. Remzi Sanver, 2016. "Absolute Qualified Majoritarianism: How Does the Threshold Matter?," AMSE Working Papers 1643, Aix-Marseille School of Economics, France.
    14. Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit, 2021. "Axioms for defeat in democratic elections," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 33(4), pages 475-524, October.
    15. Asan, Goksel & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2006. "Maskin monotonic aggregation rules," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 179-183, May.
    16. Josep Freixas & Montserrat Pons, 2021. "An extension and an alternative characterization of May’s theorem," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 302(1), pages 137-150, July.
    17. Marchant, Thierry, 2007. "An axiomatic characterization of different majority concepts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 179(1), pages 160-173, May.
    18. Alcantud, José Carlos R., 2019. "Yet another characterization of the majority rule," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 52-55.
    19. Emre Doğan & M. Sanver, 2008. "Arrovian impossibilities in aggregating preferences over non-resolute outcomes," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 30(3), pages 495-506, April.
    20. McMorris, F.R. & Mulder, Henry Martyn & Novick, Beth & Powers, Robert C., 2021. "Majority rule for profiles of arbitrary length, with an emphasis on the consistency axiom," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 164-174.
    21. Quesada, Antonio, 2009. "Decision by majority and the right to vote," MPRA Paper 19400, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    22. Llamazares, Bonifacio, 2006. "The forgotten decision rules: Majority rules based on difference of votes," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 311-326, May.
    23. Antonio Quesada, 2012. "A short step between democracy and dictatorship," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 72(2), pages 149-166, February.
    24. Antonio Quesada, 2013. "The majority rule with a chairman," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(3), pages 679-691, March.
    25. Gersbach, Hans, 2017. "Flexible Majority Rules in democracyville: A guided tour," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 37-43.
    26. J. Woeginger, Gerhard, 2003. "A new characterization of the majority rule," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 89-94, October.
    27. Quesada, Antonio, 2010. "Monotonicity + efficiency + continuity = majority," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 149-153, September.
    28. Campbell, Donald E. & Kelly, Jerry S., 2011. "Majority selection of one alternative from a binary agenda," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 110(3), pages 272-273, March.
    29. José Luis Garcí a-Lapresta & Bonifacio Llamazares, 2010. "Preference Intensities and Majority Decisions Based on Difference of Support Between Alternatives," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 19(6), pages 527-542, November.
    30. F. McMorris & R. Powers, 2008. "The majority decision function for trees with 3 leaves," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 163(1), pages 169-175, October.
    31. Bandhu, Sarvesh & Lahiri, Abhinaba & Pramanik, Anup, 2020. "A characterization of status quo rules in the binary social choice model," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    32. McMorris, F.R. & Powers, R.C., 2013. "Majority decision on median semilattices," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 48-51.
    33. Adrian Miroiu, 2013. "Responsiveness axioms and the majority rule," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 33(1), pages 740-746.
    34. Remzi Sanver, M., 2006. "Nash implementation of the majority rule," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 369-372, June.
    35. Hoots, Lucas & Powers, Robert C., 2015. "Anonymous and positively responsive aggregation rules," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 9-14.
    36. Sanne Zwart, 2010. "Ensuring a representative referendum outcome: the daunting task of setting the quorum right," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 34(4), pages 643-677, April.
    37. Antonio Quesada, 2013. "The Majority Rule with Arbitrators," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 321-330, March.
    38. Nuñez, M. & Valletta, G., 2012. "The information simplicity of scoring rules," Research Memorandum 011, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    39. Campbell, Donald E. & Kelly, Jerry S., 2013. "Anonymity, monotonicity, and limited neutrality: Selecting a single alternative from a binary agenda," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 10-12.
    40. Adrian Miroiu, 2021. "Majority Voting and Higher-Order Societies," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(5), pages 983-999, October.
    41. Xu, Yongsheng & Zhong, Zhen, 2010. "Single profile of preferences with variable societies: A characterization of simple majority rule," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 119-121, May.
    42. Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit, 2023. "An extension of May's Theorem to three alternatives: axiomatizing Minimax voting," Papers 2312.14256, arXiv.org.
    43. Mateusz Krukowski, 2023. "Majority rule as a unique voting method in elections with multiple candidates," Papers 2310.12983, arXiv.org.
    44. M. Sanver, 2009. "Characterizations of majoritarianism: a unified approach," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 33(1), pages 159-171, June.

  54. M. Remzi Sanver, 2002. "An Allocation Rule with Wealth‐Regressive Tax Rates," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 4(1), pages 63-69, January.

    Cited by:

    1. Sinan Ertemel & Levent Kutlu & M. Remzi Sanver, 2015. "Voting games of resolute social choice correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(1), pages 187-201, June.

  55. Sanver, M. Remzi, 2002. "Scoring rules cannot respect majority in choice and elimination simultaneously," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 151-155, March.

    Cited by:

    1. Woeginger, Gerhard J., 2003. "A note on scoring rules that respect majority in choice and elimination," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 347-354, December.
    2. Brandl, Florian & Peters, Dominik, 2022. "Approval voting under dichotomous preferences: A catalogue of characterizations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    3. Aleksei Y. Kondratev & Alexander S. Nesterov, 2020. "Measuring majority power and veto power of voting rules," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 183(1), pages 187-210, April.
    4. Jac C. Heckelman, 2023. "Negative voting social welfare functions: a characterization," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 27(1), pages 125-132, February.

  56. Sertel, Murat R. & Sanver, M. Remzi, 1999. "Equilibrium outcomes of Lindahl-endowment pretension games1," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 149-162, June.

    Cited by:

    1. Murat R. Sertel & Remzi Sanver, 2001. "Strong Equilibrium Outcomes of Voting Games are the Generalized Condorcet Winners," Working Papers 0107, Department of Economics, Bilkent University.
    2. Nigar Hashimzade & Gareth Myles, 2008. "Announcement or Contribution? The Relative Efficiency of Manipulated Lindahl Mechanisms," Discussion Papers 0812, University of Exeter, Department of Economics.
    3. Sinan Ertemel & Levent Kutlu & M. Remzi Sanver, 2015. "Voting games of resolute social choice correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(1), pages 187-201, June.
    4. Corchón, Luis C., 2008. "The theory of implementation : what did we learn?," UC3M Working papers. Economics we081207, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía.

Chapters

  1. İpek Özkal-Sanver & Pelin Pasin & M. Remzi Sanver, 2015. "Minimal Maskin Monotonic Extensions of Tournament Solutions," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Constanze Binder & Giulio Codognato & Miriam Teschl & Yongsheng Xu (ed.), Individual and Collective Choice and Social Welfare, edition 127, pages 127-141, Springer.

    Cited by:

    1. M. Remzi Sanver, 2017. "Nash implementing social choice rules with restricted ranges," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 21(1), pages 65-72, March.

  2. Jean-François Laslier & M. Remzi Sanver, 2010. "Introduction to the Handbook on Approval Voting," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Jean-François Laslier & M. Remzi Sanver (ed.), Handbook on Approval Voting, chapter 0, pages 1-12, Springer.

    Cited by:

    1. Justin Kruger & M. Remzi Sanver, 2021. "An Arrovian impossibility in combining ranking and evaluation," Post-Print hal-03347632, HAL.
    2. Andranik Tangian, 2021. "MCDM Application of the Third Vote," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 775-787, August.
    3. J.C.R. Alcantud & R. de Andrés Calle & J.M. Cascón, 2013. "Consensus and the Act of Voting," Studies in Microeconomics, , vol. 1(1), pages 1-22, June.
    4. Antoinette Baujard & Frédéric Gavrel & Herrade Igersheim & Jean-François Laslier & Isabelle Lebon, 2014. "Who's Favored by Evaluative Voting? An Experiment Conducted During the 2012 French Presidential Election," Post-Print hal-00803024, HAL.
    5. Isabelle Lebon & Antoinette Baujard & Frédéric Gavrel & Herrade Igersheim & Jean-François Laslier, 2017. "Ce que le vote par approbation révèle des préférences des électeurs français," Post-Print halshs-01420369, HAL.
    6. Tanguiane, Andranick S., 2022. "Analysis of the 2021 Bundestag elections. 4/4. The third vote application," Working Paper Series in Economics 154, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    7. Kölle, Felix, 2022. "Governance and competition," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    8. Hans Gersbach, 2022. "New Forms of Democracy," CESifo Working Paper Series 10134, CESifo.

  3. Jean-François Laslier & M. Remzi Sanver, 2010. "The Basic Approval Voting Game," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Jean-François Laslier & M. Remzi Sanver (ed.), Handbook on Approval Voting, chapter 0, pages 153-163, Springer.

    Cited by:

    1. Sebastien Courtin & Matias Nunez, 2013. "A Map of Approval Voting Equilibria Outcomes," Working Papers hal-00914887, HAL.
    2. Matias Nunez & Jean-François Laslier, 2015. "Bargaining through Approval," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) halshs-01310223, HAL.
    3. François Durand & Antonin Macé & Matias Nunez, 2019. "Analysis of Approval Voting in Poisson Games," PSE Working Papers halshs-02049865, HAL.
    4. Matías Núñez & Jean Laslier, 2014. "Preference intensity representation: strategic overstating in large elections," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(2), pages 313-340, February.
    5. Sébastien Courtin & Matias Nunez, 2013. "Dominance Solvable Approval Voting Games," THEMA Working Papers 2013-27, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    6. Matías Núñez, 2014. "The strategic sincerity of Approval voting," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 56(1), pages 157-189, May.
    7. Duddy, Conal, 2014. "Electing a representative committee by approval ballot: An impossibility result," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 124(1), pages 14-16.
    8. Su, Francis Edward & Zerbib, Shira, 2019. "Piercing numbers in approval voting," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 65-71.
    9. Mongin, Philippe & Maniquet, François, 2011. "Approval voting and arrow's impossibility theorem," HEC Research Papers Series 954, HEC Paris.
    10. Núñez, Matías, 2015. "Threshold voting leads to Type-Revelation," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 211-213.

  4. M. Remzi Sanver, 2010. "Approval as an Intrinsic Part of Preference," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Jean-François Laslier & M. Remzi Sanver (ed.), Handbook on Approval Voting, chapter 0, pages 469-481, Springer.

    Cited by:

    1. Justin Kruger & M. Remzi Sanver, 2021. "An Arrovian impossibility in combining ranking and evaluation," Post-Print hal-03347632, HAL.
    2. Hans Peters & Souvik Roy & Ton Storcken, 2012. "On the manipulability of approval voting and related scoring rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 39(2), pages 399-429, July.
    3. Eric Kamwa, 2023. "On two voting systems that combine approval and preferences: fallback voting and preference approval voting," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 196(1), pages 169-205, July.
    4. Brams, Steven & Potthoff, Richard, 2015. "The Paradox of Grading Systems," MPRA Paper 63268, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Matías Núñez, 2014. "The strategic sincerity of Approval voting," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 56(1), pages 157-189, May.
    6. Guy Barokas & Yves Sprumont, 2022. "The broken Borda rule and other refinements of approval ranking," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 58(1), pages 187-199, January.
    7. Alessandro Albano & José Luis García-Lapresta & Antonella Plaia & Mariangela Sciandra, 2023. "A family of distances for preference–approvals," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 323(1), pages 1-29, April.
    8. Ulle Endriss, 2013. "Sincerity and manipulation under approval voting," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 74(3), pages 335-355, March.

  5. Steven J. Brams & M. Remzi Sanver, 2009. "Voting Systems that Combine Approval and Preference," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Steven J. Brams & William V. Gehrlein & Fred S. Roberts (ed.), The Mathematics of Preference, Choice and Order, pages 215-237, Springer.

    Cited by:

    1. Justin Kruger & M. Remzi Sanver, 2021. "An Arrovian impossibility in combining ranking and evaluation," Post-Print hal-03347632, HAL.
    2. Guy Barokas, 2022. "Revealed desirability: a novel instrument for social welfare," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 93(4), pages 649-661, November.
    3. 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.
    4. Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit, 2020. "Axioms for Defeat in Democratic Elections," Papers 2008.08451, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2023.
    5. Sylvain Béal & Sylvain Ferrières & Philippe Solal, 2023. "A Core-Partition Ranking Solution to Coalitional Ranking Problems," Post-Print hal-04114152, HAL.
    6. Bora Erdamar & José Luis Garcia-Lapresta & David Pérez-Roman & Remzi Sanver, 2012. "Measuring consensus in a preference-approval context," Working Papers hal-00681297, HAL.
    7. Richard Potthoff, 2013. "Simple manipulation-resistant voting systems designed to elect Condorcet candidates and suitable for large-scale public elections," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(1), pages 101-122, January.
    8. Federica Ceron & Stéphane Gonzalez, 2019. "A characterization of Approval Voting without the approval balloting assumption," Working Papers 1938, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    9. Eric Kamwa, 2023. "On two voting systems that combine approval and preferences: fallback voting and preference approval voting," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 196(1), pages 169-205, July.
    10. Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit, 2021. "Axioms for defeat in democratic elections," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 33(4), pages 475-524, October.
    11. William V. Gehrlein & Dominique Lepelley, 2014. "The Condorcet Efficiency Advantage that Voter Indifference Gives to Approval Voting Over Some Other Voting Rules," Post-Print hal-01450834, HAL.
    12. Brams, Steven & Potthoff, Richard, 2015. "The Paradox of Grading Systems," MPRA Paper 63268, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Richard Potthoff, 2011. "Condorcet Polling," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 148(1), pages 67-86, July.
    14. Werner Güth & M. Vittoria Levati & Natalia Montinari, 2012. "Ranking alternatives by a fair bidding rule: a theoretical and experimental analysis," Jena Economics Research Papers 2012-005, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    15. Guy Barokas & Yves Sprumont, 2022. "The broken Borda rule and other refinements of approval ranking," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 58(1), pages 187-199, January.
    16. Eric Kamwa, 2019. "Condorcet efficiency of the preference approval voting and the probability of selecting the Condorcet loser," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 87(3), pages 299-320, October.
    17. Alessandro Albano & José Luis García-Lapresta & Antonella Plaia & Mariangela Sciandra, 2023. "A family of distances for preference–approvals," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 323(1), pages 1-29, April.
    18. Gilbert Laffond & Jean Lainé, 2012. "Searching for a Compromise in Multiple Referendum," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 551-569, July.
    19. Brams, Steven J. & Kilgour, D. Marc, 2011. "When does approval voting make the "right choices"?," MPRA Paper 34262, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Núñez, Matías, 2015. "Threshold voting leads to Type-Revelation," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 211-213.
    21. Takashi Kurihara, 2020. "Net Borda rules with desirability," Working Papers 2002, Waseda University, Faculty of Political Science and Economics.

  6. D. Marc Kilgour & Steven J. Brams & M. Remzi Sanver, 2006. "How to Elect a Representative Committee Using Approval Balloting," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Bruno Simeone & Friedrich Pukelsheim (ed.), Mathematics and Democracy, pages 83-95, Springer.

    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. Murat Çengelci & M. Sanver, 2010. "Simple Collective Identity Functions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(4), pages 417-443, April.
    3. 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.
    4. Kamwa, Eric, 2017. "On stable rules for selecting committees," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 36-44.
    5. 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.
    6. Begoña Subiza & Josep E. Peris, 2017. "A Representative Committee by Approval Balloting," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(5), pages 1029-1040, September.
    7. D. Marc Kilgour, 2016. "Approval elections with a variable number of winners," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 81(2), pages 199-211, August.
    8. Subiza, Begoña & Peris, Josep E., 2014. "A Consensual Committee Using Approval Balloting," QM&ET Working Papers 14-5, University of Alicante, D. Quantitative Methods and Economic Theory.
    9. Christian Klamler & Daniel Eckert, 2008. "Antipodality in committee selection," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(1), pages 1-5.
    10. Brams, Steven J. & Kilgour, D. Marc & Potthoff, Richard F., 2017. "Multi winner Approval Voting: An Apportionment Approach," MPRA Paper 77931, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Gilbert Laffond & Jean Lainé, 2012. "Searching for a Compromise in Multiple Referendum," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 551-569, July.
    12. Haris Aziz & Markus Brill & Vincent Conitzer & Edith Elkind & Rupert Freeman & Toby Walsh, 2017. "Justified representation in approval-based committee voting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(2), pages 461-485, February.
    13. Steven Brams & D. Kilgour & M. Sanver, 2007. "A minimax procedure for electing committees," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 132(3), pages 401-420, September.
    14. Darmann, Andreas, 2013. "How hard is it to tell which is a Condorcet committee?," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 282-292.

Books

  1. Jean-François Laslier & M. Remzi Sanver (ed.), 2010. "Handbook on Approval Voting," Studies in Choice and Welfare, Springer, number 978-3-642-02839-7, December.

    Cited by:

    1. Michel Balinski & Rida Laraki, 2022. "Majority Judgment vs. Approval Voting," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 70(3), pages 1296-1316, May.
    2. Justin Kruger & M. Remzi Sanver, 2021. "An Arrovian impossibility in combining ranking and evaluation," Post-Print hal-03347632, HAL.
    3. Sebastien Courtin & Matias Nunez, 2013. "A Map of Approval Voting Equilibria Outcomes," Working Papers hal-00914887, HAL.
    4. Castanheira, Micael & Bouton, Laurent & Llorente-Saguer, Aniol, 2012. "Divided Majority and Information Aggregation: Theory and Experiment," CEPR Discussion Papers 9234, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    5. Mostapha Diss & Ahmed Doghmi, 2016. "Multi-winner scoring election methods: Condorcet consistency and paradoxes," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 97-116, October.
    6. Matias Nunez & Jean-François Laslier, 2015. "Bargaining through Approval," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) halshs-01310223, HAL.
    7. Erik Friese & William V. Gehrlein & Dominique Lepelley & Achill Schürmann, 2017. "The impact of dependence among voters’ preferences with partial indifference," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(6), pages 2793-2812, November.
    8. 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.
    9. Hans Peters & Souvik Roy & Ton Storcken, 2012. "On the manipulability of approval voting and related scoring rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 39(2), pages 399-429, July.
    10. Jean-François Laslier & Karine van Der Straeten, 2016. "Strategic voting in multi-winner elections with approval balloting: a theory for large electorates," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) halshs-01518277, HAL.
    11. Blais, André & Laslier, Jean-François & Sauger, Nicolas & Van Der Straeten, Karine, 2009. "Strategic, Sincere and Heuristic Voting under Four Election Rules: An Experimental Study," IDEI Working Papers 559, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse.
    12. 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.
    13. Marcus Pivato, 2016. "Statistical utilitarianism," Post-Print hal-02980108, HAL.
    14. Erdamar, Bora & Sanver, M. Remzi & Sato, Shin, 2017. "Evaluationwise strategy-proofness," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 227-238.
    15. François Durand & Antonin Macé & Matias Nunez, 2019. "Analysis of Approval Voting in Poisson Games," PSE Working Papers halshs-02049865, HAL.
    16. Andranik Tangian, 2021. "MCDM Application of the Third Vote," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 775-787, August.
    17. Piotr Faliszewski & Piotr Skowron & Arkadii Slinko & Nimrod Talmon, 2018. "Multiwinner analogues of the plurality rule: axiomatic and algorithmic perspectives," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(3), pages 513-550, October.
    18. Matías Núñez & Jean Laslier, 2014. "Preference intensity representation: strategic overstating in large elections," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(2), pages 313-340, February.
    19. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa, 2020. "Simulations in Models of Preference Aggregation," Post-Print hal-02424936, HAL.
    20. J.C.R. Alcantud & R. de Andrés Calle & J.M. Cascón, 2013. "Consensus and the Act of Voting," Studies in Microeconomics, , vol. 1(1), pages 1-22, June.
    21. Uuganbaatar Ninjbat, 2013. "Approval Voting without Faithfulness," Czech Economic Review, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, vol. 7(1), pages 015-020, March.
    22. Nehring, Klaus & Puppe, Clemens, 2019. "Resource allocation by frugal majority rule," Working Paper Series in Economics 131, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    23. Núñez, Matías & Pivato, Marcus, 2019. "Truth-revealing voting rules for large populations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 285-305.
    24. Martínez, Ricardo & Moreno, Bernardo, 2017. "Qualified voting systems," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 49-54.
    25. Sébastien Courtin & Matias Nunez, 2013. "Dominance Solvable Approval Voting Games," THEMA Working Papers 2013-27, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    26. Markus Brill & Jean-François Laslier & Piotr Skowron, 2018. "Multiwinner approval rules as apportionment methods," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) halshs-02087610, HAL.
    27. Antoinette Baujard & Frédéric Gavrel & Herrade Igersheim & Jean-François Laslier & Isabelle Lebon, 2014. "Who's Favored by Evaluative Voting? An Experiment Conducted During the 2012 French Presidential Election," Post-Print hal-00803024, HAL.
    28. Matias Nunez & Laslier Jean François Author-Workplace-Name : Ecole Polytechnique, 2010. "Overstating: A tale of two cities," THEMA Working Papers 2010-05, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    29. Kölle, Felix, 2020. "Governance and Group Conflict," MPRA Paper 98859, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    30. Igerseim, Herrade & Baujard, Antoinette & Laslier, Jean-François, 2016. "La question du vote. Expérimentations en laboratoire et In Situ," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 92(1-2), pages 151-189, Mars-Juin.
    31. Tanya Gibbs & Henry W. Chappell, Jr., 2021. "Elections with Multiple Positive and Negative Votes," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 37-47, December.
    32. Eric Kamwa, 2023. "On two voting systems that combine approval and preferences: fallback voting and preference approval voting," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 196(1), pages 169-205, July.
    33. Weber, Shlomo & Ginsburgh, Victor & Moreno-Tenero, Juan, 2016. "Ranking Languages in the European Union:Before and after Brexit," CEPR Discussion Papers 11529, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    34. Markus Brill & Paul Gölz & Dominik Peters & Ulrike Schmidt-Kraepelin & Kai Wilker, 2022. "Approval-based apportionment," Post-Print hal-03816043, HAL.
    35. Martin Lackner & Piotr Skowron, 2017. "Consistent Approval-Based Multi-Winner Rules," Papers 1704.02453, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2019.
    36. Begoña Subiza & Josep E. Peris, 2017. "A Representative Committee by Approval Balloting," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(5), pages 1029-1040, September.
    37. Wiltrud Kuhlisch & Magnus Roos & Jörg Rothe & Joachim Rudolph & Björn Scheuermann & Dietrich Stoyan, 2016. "A statistical approach to calibrating the scores of biased reviewers of scientific papers," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 79(1), pages 37-57, January.
    38. Steven J. Brams & D. Marc Kilgour, 2014. "Satisfaction Approval Voting," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Rudolf Fara & Dennis Leech & Maurice Salles (ed.), Voting Power and Procedures, edition 127, pages 323-346, Springer.
    39. Cahan, Dodge & McCabe-Dansted, John & Slinko, Arkadii, 2018. "Asymmetric equilibria in spatial competition under weakly concave scoring rules," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 71-74.
    40. 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.
    41. André Blais & Jean-François Laslier & François Poinas & Karine van Der Straeten, 2015. "Citizens’ preferences about voting rules: self-interest, ideology, and sincerity," PSE - Labex "OSE-Ouvrir la Science Economique" halshs-01310218, HAL.
    42. William V. Gehrlein & Dominique Lepelley, 2014. "The Condorcet Efficiency Advantage that Voter Indifference Gives to Approval Voting Over Some Other Voting Rules," Post-Print hal-01450834, HAL.
    43. Jean-François Laslier & Matias Nunez & Carlos Pimienta, 2017. "Reaching consensus through approval bargaining," Post-Print halshs-01630037, HAL.
    44. Steven J. Brams & William V. Gehrlein & Fred S. Roberts, 2021. "Peter C. Fishburn (1936–2021)," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 57(1), pages 1-3, July.
    45. Moyouwou, Issofa & Tchantcho, Hugue, 2017. "Asymptotic vulnerability of positional voting rules to coalitional manipulation," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 70-82.
    46. Ján Palguta, 2011. "Voting Experiments: Measuring Vulnerability of Voting Procedures to Manipulation," Czech Economic Review, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, vol. 5(3), pages 324-345, November.
    47. Pierre Dehez & Victor Ginsburgh, 2020. "Approval voting and Shapley ranking," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 184(3), pages 415-428, September.
    48. Isabelle Lebon & Antoinette Baujard & Frédéric Gavrel & Herrade Igersheim & Jean-François Laslier, 2017. "Ce que le vote par approbation révèle des préférences des électeurs français," Post-Print halshs-01420369, HAL.
    49. Jean-François Laslier, 2016. "Heuristic voting under the Alternative Vote: the efficiency of `sour grapes’ behavior," Post-Print halshs-01518280, HAL.
    50. Dodge Cahan & Arkadii Slinko, 2018. "Electoral competition under best-worst voting rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(2), pages 259-279, August.
    51. Jean-François Laslier, 2011. "And the loser is... Plurality Voting," Working Papers hal-00609810, HAL.
    52. Brams, Steven & Potthoff, Richard, 2015. "The Paradox of Grading Systems," MPRA Paper 63268, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    53. Marcus Pivato, 2016. "Asymptotic utilitarianism in scoring rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(2), pages 431-458, August.
    54. 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.
    55. Norihisa Sato, 2014. "A characterization result for approval voting with a variable set of alternatives," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 43(4), pages 809-825, December.
    56. Núñez, Matías & Xefteris, Dimitrios, 2017. "Implementation via approval mechanisms," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 169-181.
    57. Warut Suksompong & Nicholas Teh, 2022. "On Maximum Weighted Nash Welfare for Binary Valuations," Papers 2204.03803, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2022.
    58. Florian Brandl & Felix Brandt, 2020. "Arrovian Aggregation of Convex Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(2), pages 799-844, March.
    59. Jobst Heitzig & Forest W. Simmons, 2020. "Efficient democratic decisions via nondeterministic proportional consensus," Papers 2006.06548, arXiv.org.
    60. George Tsebelis, 2018. "How Can We Keep Direct Democracy and Avoid “Kolotoumba”," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 81-90, June.
    61. Arnaud Dellis & Mandar Oak, 2013. "Multiple Votes, Multiple Candidacies and Polarization," School of Economics and Public Policy Working Papers 2013-02, University of Adelaide, School of Economics and Public Policy.
    62. Jean-François Laslier & Matías Núñez & Carlos Pimienta, 2015. "Reaching Consensus Through Simultaneous Bargaining," Discussion Papers 2015-08, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    63. Antonin Macé, 2015. "Voting with Evaluations: When Should We Sum? What Should We Sum?," AMSE Working Papers 1544, Aix-Marseille School of Economics, France, revised 29 Oct 2015.
    64. Subiza, Begoña & Peris, Josep E., 2014. "A Consensual Committee Using Approval Balloting," QM&ET Working Papers 14-5, University of Alicante, D. Quantitative Methods and Economic Theory.
    65. Matías Núñez, 2014. "The strategic sincerity of Approval voting," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 56(1), pages 157-189, May.
    66. Gehrlein, William V. & Lepelley, Dominique & Moyouwou, Issofa, 2016. "A note on Approval Voting and electing the Condorcet loser," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 115-122.
    67. Pietro Speroni di Fenizio & Daniele A. Gewurz, 2019. "The space of all proportional voting systems and the most majoritarian among them," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 52(4), pages 663-683, April.
    68. Duddy, Conal, 2014. "Electing a representative committee by approval ballot: An impossibility result," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 124(1), pages 14-16.
    69. Sylvain Bouveret & Renaud Blanch & Antoinette Baujard & François Durand & Herrade Igersheim & Jérôme Lang & Annick Laruelle & Jean-François Laslier & Isabelle Lebon & Vincent Merlin, 2019. "Voter Autrement 2017 for the French Presidential Election," Working Papers halshs-02379941, HAL.
    70. Florian Brandl & Felix Brandt & Christian Stricker, 2022. "An analytical and experimental comparison of maximal lottery schemes," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 58(1), pages 5-38, January.
    71. Guy Barokas & Yves Sprumont, 2022. "The broken Borda rule and other refinements of approval ranking," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 58(1), pages 187-199, January.
    72. Miller, Alan D., 2013. "Community standards," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(6), pages 2696-2705.
    73. Tanguiane, Andranick S., 2022. "Analysis of the 2021 Bundestag elections. 4/4. The third vote application," Working Paper Series in Economics 154, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    74. Su, Francis Edward & Zerbib, Shira, 2019. "Piercing numbers in approval voting," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 65-71.
    75. Eric Kamwa, 2019. "Condorcet efficiency of the preference approval voting and the probability of selecting the Condorcet loser," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 87(3), pages 299-320, October.
    76. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Johannes Buckenmaier, 2018. "Strictly sincere best responses under approval voting and arbitrary preferences," ECON - Working Papers 302, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    77. Michel Balinski & Rida Laraki, 2020. "Majority judgment vs. majority rule," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 54(2), pages 429-461, March.
    78. Kölle, Felix, 2022. "Governance and competition," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    79. Jean-François Laslier & Karine van Der Straeten, 2015. "Strategic Voting under Committee Approval: A Theory," Working Papers halshs-01168767, HAL.
    80. Haris Aziz & Alexander Lam & Barton E. Lee & Toby Walsh, 2021. "Strategyproof and Proportionally Fair Facility Location," Papers 2111.01566, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2023.
    81. Baumeister, Dorothea & Erdélyi, Gábor & Erdélyi, Olivia J. & Rothe, Jörg, 2015. "Complexity of manipulation and bribery in judgment aggregation for uniform premise-based quota rules," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 19-30.
    82. Alessandro Albano & José Luis García-Lapresta & Antonella Plaia & Mariangela Sciandra, 2023. "A family of distances for preference–approvals," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 323(1), pages 1-29, April.
    83. Ulle Endriss, 2013. "Sincerity and manipulation under approval voting," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 74(3), pages 335-355, March.
    84. Brams, Steven J. & Kilgour, D. Marc & Potthoff, Richard F., 2017. "Multi winner Approval Voting: An Apportionment Approach," MPRA Paper 77931, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    85. Gaertner, Wulf & Xu, Yongsheng, 2012. "A general scoring rule," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 193-196.
    86. Gilbert Laffond & Jean Lainé, 2012. "Searching for a Compromise in Multiple Referendum," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 551-569, July.
    87. Elias Bouacida, 2021. "Identifying Choice Correspondences," Working Papers halshs-01998001, HAL.
    88. Mongin, Philippe & Maniquet, François, 2011. "Approval voting and arrow's impossibility theorem," HEC Research Papers Series 954, HEC Paris.
    89. Felix Brandt & Patrick Lederer, 2021. "Characterizing the Top Cycle via Strategyproofness," Papers 2108.04622, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2023.
    90. Steven J. Brams & Markus Brill & Anne-Marie George, 2022. "The excess method: a multiwinner approval voting procedure to allocate wasted votes," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 58(2), pages 283-300, February.
    91. Haris Aziz & Markus Brill & Vincent Conitzer & Edith Elkind & Rupert Freeman & Toby Walsh, 2017. "Justified representation in approval-based committee voting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(2), pages 461-485, February.
    92. Antonin Macé, 2017. "Voting with evaluations: characterizations of evaluative voting and range voting," Working Papers halshs-01222200, HAL.
    93. Arnold Cédrick SOH VOUTSA, 2020. "Approval Voting & Majority Judgment in Weighted Representative Democracy," THEMA Working Papers 2020-15, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    94. Abdelhalim El Ouafdi & Dominique Lepelley & Hatem Smaoui, 2020. "On the Condorcet efficiency of evaluative voting (and other voting rules) with trichotomous preferences," Post-Print hal-03543401, HAL.
    95. Duddy, Conal, 2015. "Fair sharing under dichotomous preferences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 1-5.
    96. Núñez, Matías, 2015. "Threshold voting leads to Type-Revelation," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 211-213.
    97. Sato, Norihisa, 2019. "Approval voting and fixed electorate with dichotomous preferences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 51-60.
    98. Denis Bouyssou & M. Remzi Sanver, 2022. "Simple but Powerful Models of Stereotype Formation," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 73(6), pages 1055-1068.
    99. Martin Lackner & Jan Maly, 2020. "Approval-Based Shortlisting," Papers 2005.07094, arXiv.org, revised May 2022.
    100. Alcantud, José Carlos R. & de Andres Calle, Rocio & Cascon, José Manuel, 2012. "Approval consensus measures," MPRA Paper 39610, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    101. Alós-Ferrer, Carlos & Buckenmaier, Johannes, 2019. "Strongly sincere best responses under approval voting and arbitrary preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 388-401.
    102. Aki Lehtinen, 2011. "A welfarist critique of social choice theory," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 23(3), pages 359-381, July.
    103. Trevor Leach & Robert C. Powers, 2020. "Majority rule on j-rich ballot spaces," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 54(4), pages 639-655, April.
    104. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Ðura-Georg Granić, 2012. "Two field experiments on Approval Voting in Germany," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 39(1), pages 171-205, June.
    105. Hans Gersbach, 2022. "New Forms of Democracy," CESifo Working Paper Series 10134, CESifo.
    106. José Alcantud & Annick Laruelle, 2014. "Dis&approval voting: a characterization," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 43(1), pages 1-10, June.
    107. Andreas Darmann & Julia Grundner & Christian Klamler, 2017. "Election outcomes under different ways to announce preferences: an analysis of the 2015 parliament election in the Austrian federal state of Styria," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 173(1), pages 201-216, October.
    108. Kilgour, D. Marc & Vetschera, Rudolf, 2018. "Two-player fair division of indivisible items: Comparison of algorithms," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 271(2), pages 620-631.

IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.