This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Voting procedures

In: Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Brams, Steven J.
Fishburn, Peter C.

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

Voting procedures focus on the aggregation of individuals' preferences to produce collective decisions. In practice, a voting procedure is characterized by ballot responses and the way ballots are tallied to determine winners. Voters are assumed to have clear preferences over candidates and attempt to maximize satisfaction with the election outcome by their ballot responses. Such responses can include strategic misrepresentation of preferences.Voting procedures are formalized by social choice functions, which map ballot response profiles into election outcomes. We discuss broad classes of social choice functions as well as special cases such as plurality rule, approval voting, and Borda's point-count method. The simplest class is voting procedures for two-candidate elections. Conditions for social choice functions are presented for simple majority rule, the class of weighted majority rules, and for what are referred to as hierarchical representative systems.The second main class, which predominates in the literature, embraces all procedures for electing one candidate from three or more contenders. The multicandidate elect-one social choice functions in this broad class are divided into nonranked one-stage procedures, nonranked multistage procedures, ranked voting methods, and positional scoring rules. Nonranked methods include plurality check-one voting and approval voting, where each voter casts either no vote or a full vote for each candidate. On ballots for positional scoring methods, voters rank candidates from most preferred to least preferred. Topics for multicandidate methods include axiomatic characterizations, susceptibility to strategic manipulation, and voting paradoxes that expose questionable aspects of particular procedures.Other social choice functions are designed to elect two or more candidates for committee memberships from a slate of contenders. Proportional representation methods, including systems that elect members sequentially from a single ranked ballot with vote transfers in successive counting stages, are primary examples of this class.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help file. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B7P65-4FFPH86-8/2/e90279cb3d3d483fbfcf4022d1046ec3
File Format:
File Function:
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Publisher Info
Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML, plain text, BibTeX, RIS (EndNote), ReDIF
This chapter was published in: K. J. Arrow & A. K. Sen & K. Suzumura (ed.) Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, , chapter 04, pages 173-236, 2002.

This item is provided by Elsevier in its series Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare with number 1-04.

Handle: RePEc:eee:socchp:1-04

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/bookseriesdescription.cws_home/BS_HE/description

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Heidi Boesdal).

Related research
This chapter was published in the following book, which is listed on IDEAS:
K. J. Arrow & A. K. Sen & K. Suzumura (ed.), 2002. "Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare," Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 1, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Keywords:

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:
I0 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - General

Cited by:
(explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)

  1. Antonio Nicolo' & Yan Yu, 2006. "Strategic Divide and Choose," "Marco Fanno" Working Papers 0022, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche "Marco Fanno". [Downloadable!]
  2. William Thomson, 2006. "Children crying at birthday parties. Why? Fairness and incentives for cake division problems," RCER Working Papers 526, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER). [Downloadable!]
  3. Donald G. Saari, 1997. "Explaining Positional Voting Paradoxes II: The General Case," Discussion Papers 1187, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science. [Downloadable!]
  4. Dhillon, A. & Lockwood, B., 1999. "When are Plurality Rule Voting Games Dominance-Solvable?," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 549, University of Warwick, Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  5. SLINKO, Arkadii & WHITE, Shaun, 2006. "On the Manipulability of Proportional Representation," Cahiers de recherche 2006-20, Universite de Montreal, Departement de sciences economiques. [Downloadable!]
  6. Brams, S. J. & Fishburn, P. C., 2000. "A Nail-Biting Election," Working Papers 00-06, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? Springer Verlag was the first commercial publisher to be listed on RePEc.

This page was last updated on 2008-8-11.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.