Level r Consensus and Stable Social Choice
AbstractWe propose the concept of level r consensus as a useful property of a preference profile which considerably enhances the stability of social choice. This concept involves a weakening of unanimity, the most extreme form of consensus. It is shown that if a preference profile exhibits level r consensus around a given preference relation, the associated majority relation is transitive. In addition, the majority relation coincides with the preference relation around which there is such consensus. Furthermore, if the level of consensus is sufficiently strong, the Condorcet winner is chosen by all the scoring rules. Level r consensus therefore ensures the Condorcet consistency of all scoring rules, thus eliminating the tension between decision rules inspired by ranking-based utilitarianism and the majority rule.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by CESifo Group Munich in its series CESifo Working Paper Series with number 4808.
Date of creation: 2014
Date of revision:
social choice; unanimity; consensus; preference aggregation rules; transitivity; simple majority; scoring rules; invariance to rule selection;
Other versions of this item:
- D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Baigent, Nick, 1987. "Preference Proximity and Anonymous Social Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, MIT Press, vol. 102(1), pages 161-69, February.
- Hannu Nurmi, 2004. "A Comparison of Some Distance-Based Choice Rules in Ranking Environments," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 57(1), pages 5-24, 08.
- Saari, Donald G., 1989. "A dictionary for voting paradoxes," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 443-475, August.
- Olivier Hudry & Bernard Monjardet, 2010.
"Consensus theories: an oriented survey,"
Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers)
- Olivier Hudry & Bernard Monjardet, 2010. "Consensus theories : An oriented survey," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 10057, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
- Saari,Donald G., 2008. "Disposing Dictators, Demystifying Voting Paradoxes," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521731607, 9.
- Saari,Donald G., 2008. "Disposing Dictators, Demystifying Voting Paradoxes," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521516051, 9.
- Farkas, Daniel & Nitzan, Shmuel, 1979. "The Borda Rule and Pareto Stability: A Comment," Econometrica, Econometric Society, Econometric Society, vol. 47(5), pages 1305-06, September.
- Eyal Baharad & Shmuel Nitzan, 2006. "On the selection of the same winner by all scoring rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 597-601, June.
- Lerer, Ehud & Nitzan, Shmuel, 1985. "Some general results on the metric rationalization for social decision rules," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 191-201, October.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Julio Saavedra).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.