Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Majority vote following a debate

Contents:

Author Info

  • VIEILLE, Nicolas

    ()

  • GILBOA, Itzhak

    ()

Abstract

Voters determine their preferences over alternatives based on cases (or arguments) that are raised in the public debate. Each voter is characterized by a matrix, measuring how much support each case lends to each alternative, and her ranking is additive in cases. We show that the majority vote in such a society can be any function from sets of cases to binary relations over alternatives. A similar result holds for voting with quota in the case of two alternatives.

Download Info

If 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.
File URL: http://www.hec.fr/var/fre/storage/original/application/18c426225c180eeab5b3489b8a803c1c.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by HEC Paris in its series Les Cahiers de Recherche with number 761.

as in new window
Length: 20 pages
Date of creation: 01 Mar 2002
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ebg:heccah:0761

Contact details of provider:
Postal: HEC Paris, 78351 Jouy-en-Josas cedex, France
Web page: http://www.hec.fr/
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: Case-based decision theory; voting theory; debates;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
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.:
as in new window
  1. Enriqueta Aragones & Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & David Schmeidler, 2013. "Rhetoric and Analogies," PIER Working Paper Archive 13-039, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
  2. Itzhak Gilboa & David Schmeidler, 2001. "Inductive Inference: An Axiomatic Approach," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1339, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
  3. A. Rubinstein & J. Glazer, . "Debates and Decisions, On a Rationale of Argumentation Rules," Princeton Economic Theory Papers 00s7, Economics Department, Princeton University.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. VIEILLE, Nicolas, 2002. "Random walks and voting theory," Les Cahiers de Recherche 753, HEC Paris.
  2. Jerome Mathis, 2006. "Deliberation with Partially Verifiable Information," THEMA Working Papers 2006-03, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ebg:heccah:0761. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sandra Dupouy).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.