IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/van/wpaper/vuecon-16-00018.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Impossibilities for strategy-proof committee selection mechanisms with vetoes

Author

Listed:
  • Martin Van der linden

    (Department of Economics, Vanderbilt University)

Abstract

Many mechanisms used to select a committee of k members out of a candidates endow voters with some veto power over candidates. Impossibility results are provided showing that, in most cases, even limited veto power implies that the mechanism is not strategy-proof. These impossibilities hold on a large set of domains including the domain of additive preferences and even when probabilistic mechanisms are allowed.

Suggested Citation

  • Martin Van der linden, 2016. "Impossibilities for strategy-proof committee selection mechanisms with vetoes," Vanderbilt University Department of Economics Working Papers 16-00018, Vanderbilt University Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:van:wpaper:vuecon-16-00018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.accessecon.com/pubs/VUECON/VUECON-16-00018.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Barbera, Salvador & Masso, Jordi & Neme, Alejandro, 2005. "Voting by committees under constraints," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 122(2), pages 185-205, June.
    2. Eric Maskin, 1999. "Nash Equilibrium and Welfare Optimality," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 66(1), pages 23-38.
    3. Geoffroy de Clippel & Kfir Eliaz & Brian Knight, 2014. "On the Selection of Arbitrators," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(11), pages 3434-3458, November.
    4. R. Pablo Arribillaga & Jordi Massó, 2017. "Comparing Voting by Committees According to Their Manipulability," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 9(4), pages 74-107, November.
    5. Moulin, Herve, 1981. "Prudence versus sophistication in voting strategy," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 398-412, June.
    6. Barbera, Salvador & Sonnenschein, Hugo & Zhou, Lin, 1991. "Voting by Committees," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(3), pages 595-609, May.
    7. Barbera, Salvador & Sonnenschein, Hugo & Zhou, Lin, 1991. "Voting by Committees," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(3), pages 595-609, May.
    8. Biung-Ghi Ju, 2003. "A characterization of strategy-proof voting rules for separable weak orderings," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 21(3), pages 469-499, December.
    9. Chatterji, Shurojit & Roy, Souvik & Sen, Arunava, 2012. "The structure of strategy-proof random social choice functions over product domains and lexicographically separable preferences," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 353-366.
    10. Francis X. Flanagan, 2015. "Peremptory Challenges and Jury Selection," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 58(2), pages 385-416.
    11. Gibbard, Allan, 1977. "Manipulation of Schemes That Mix Voting with Chance," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(3), pages 665-681, April.
    12. James Schummer, 1999. "Strategy-proofness versus efficiency for small domains of preferences over public goods," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 13(3), pages 709-722.
    13. Sen, Amartya Kumar, 1970. "The Impossibility of a Paretian Liberal," Scholarly Articles 3612779, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    14. Martin Van der Linden, 2018. "Bounded Rationality and the Choice of Jury Selection Procedures," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 61(4), pages 711-738.
    15. Sen, Amartya, 1970. "The Impossibility of a Paretian Liberal," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 78(1), pages 152-157, Jan.-Feb..
    16. Mueller, Dennis C., 1978. "Voting by veto," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 57-75, August.
    17. Le Breton, Michel & Weymark, John A., 1999. "Strategy-proof social choice with continuous separable preferences," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 47-85, August.
    18. Fany Yuval, 2002. "Sophisticated Voting Under the Sequential Voting by Veto 1," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 53(4), pages 343-369, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chatterji, Shurojit & Zeng, Huaxia, 2019. "Random mechanism design on multidimensional domains," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 25-105.
    2. John A. Weymark, 2008. "Strategy‐Proofness and the Tops‐Only Property," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 10(1), pages 7-26, February.
    3. Lars-Gunnar Svensson & Pär Torstensson, 2008. "Strategy-proof allocation of multiple public goods," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 30(2), pages 181-196, February.
    4. Chatterji, Shurojit & Zeng, Huaxia, 2018. "On random social choice functions with the tops-only property," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 413-435.
    5. 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).
    6. Chatterji, Shurojit & Sen, Arunava & Zeng, Huaxia, 2014. "Random dictatorship domains," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 212-236.
    7. Biung-Ghi Ju, 2010. "Individual powers and social consent: an axiomatic approach," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 34(4), pages 571-596, April.
    8. Madhuparna Karmokar & Souvik Roy, 2023. "The structure of (local) ordinal Bayesian incentive compatible random rules," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 76(1), pages 111-152, July.
    9. Ju, Biung-Ghi, 2011. "Collectively rational voting rules for simple preferences," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 143-149, March.
    10. Kentaro Hatsumi & Dolors Berga & Shigehiro Serizawa, 2014. "A maximal domain for strategy-proof and no-vetoer rules in the multi-object choice model," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 43(1), pages 153-168, February.
    11. Bogomolnaia, Anna & Holzman, Ron & Moulin, Hervé, 2023. "On guarantees, vetoes and random dictators," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 18(1), January.
    12. Mishra, Debasis & Roy, Souvik, 2012. "Strategy-proof partitioning," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 285-300.
    13. Anna bogomolnaia Ron Holzman Herve Moulin, 2021. "Wost Case in Voting and Bargaining," Papers 2104.02316, arXiv.org.
    14. Anna Bogomolnaia & Ron Holzman & Hervé Moulin, 2021. "Worst Case in Voting and Bargaining," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-03196999, HAL.
    15. 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.
    16. Roy, Souvik & Sadhukhan, Soumyarup, 2021. "Formation of committees under constraints through random voting rules," MPRA Paper 110873, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Roy, Souvik & Sadhukhan, Soumyarup, 2023. "Committee formation under constraints through randomized voting rules on separable domains," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    18. Barberà, Salvador & Coelho, Danilo, 2017. "Balancing the power to appoint officers," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 189-203.
    19. William Thomson, 2018. "On the terminology of economic design: a critical assessment and some proposals," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 22(1), pages 67-99, June.
    20. Biung-Ghi Ju, 2005. "A characterization of plurality-like rules based on non-manipulability, restricted efficiency, and anonymity," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 33(3), pages 335-354, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Mechanism design; Strategy-proofness; Veto; Probabilistic mechanism; Committee selection;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C7 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory
    • D7 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:van:wpaper:vuecon-16-00018. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: John P. Conley (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/econ/wparchive/index.html .

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

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