Are Condorcet procedures so bad according to the reinforcement axiom?
AbstractA Condorcet social choice procedure elects the candidate that beats every other candidate under simple majority when such a candidate exists. The reinforcement axiom roughly states that given two groups of individuals, if these two groups select the same alternative, then this alternative must also be selected by their union. Condorcet social choice procedures are known to violate this axiom. Our goal in this paper is to put this important voting theory result into perspective. We then proceed by evaluating how frequently this phenomenon is susceptible to occur.
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 THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise in its series THEMA Working Papers with number 2012-37.
Date of creation: 2012
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: 33, boulevard du port - 95011 Cergy-Pontoise Cedex
Phone: 33 1 34 25 60 63
Fax: 33 1 34 25 62 33
Web page: http://thema.u-cergy.fr
More information through EDIRC
Condorcet procedures • Reinforcement axiom • Likelihood • Impartial culture • Impartial anonymous culture;
Other versions of this item:
- Sebastien Courtin & Boniface Mbih & Issofa Moyouwou, 2013. "Are Condorcet procedures so bad according to the reinforcement axiom?," Post-Print hal-00914870, HAL.
- D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2012-10-06 (All new papers)
- NEP-CDM-2012-10-06 (Collective Decision-Making)
- NEP-MIC-2012-10-06 (Microeconomics)
- NEP-PUB-2012-10-06 (Public Finance)
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.:
- Smith, John H, 1973. "Aggregation of Preferences with Variable Electorate," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(6), pages 1027-41, November.
- Donald Saari, 2006. "Which is better: the Condorcet or Borda winner?," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 107-129, January.
- Dominique Lepelley & Ahmed Louichi & Hatem Smaoui, 2006.
"On Ehrhart Polynomials and Probability Calculations in Voting Theory,"
Economics Working Paper Archive (University of Rennes 1 & University of Caen)
200610, Center for Research in Economics and Management (CREM), University of Rennes 1, University of Caen and CNRS.
- Dominique Lepelley & Ahmed Louichi & Hatem Smaoui, 2008. "On Ehrhart polynomials and probability calculations in voting theory," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 363-383, April.
- Sebastien Courtin & Boniface Mbih & Issofa Moyouwou & Thomas Senné, 2010.
"The reinforcement axiom under sequential positional rules,"
- Sébastien Courtin & Boniface Mbih & Issofa Moyouwou & Thomas Senné, 2010. "The reinforcement axiom under sequential positional rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 473-500, September.
- Young, H. P., 1974. "An axiomatization of Borda's rule," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 43-52, September.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Marion Oury).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.