IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ebl/ecbull/eb-14-00486.html

How risky is it to manipulate a scoring rule under incomplete information?

Author

Listed:
  • Christian Klamler

    (University of Graz)

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the manipulability of common voting rules, in particular with the Borda rule and other scoring rules. It is shown that, if one deviates from the assumption of complete information of the voters about the preference profile in the slightest possible manner, the Borda rule may "punish" a manipulator in the sense that the manipulation might lead to a worse outcome for the manipulator than had she told the truth. Voting rules showing this kind of behavior can be considered to be more manipulation resistant than other voting rules especially if we think about sufficiently risk averse voters.

Suggested Citation

  • Christian Klamler, 2014. "How risky is it to manipulate a scoring rule under incomplete information?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 34(2), pages 1214-1221.
    • Handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-14-00486
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.accessecon.com/Pubs/EB/2014/Volume34/EB-14-V34-I2-P112.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Donald Campbell & Jerry Kelly, 2010. "Losses due to manipulation of social choice rules," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 45(3), pages 453-467, December.
    2. Prasanta K. Pattanaik & Yongsheng Xu & Walter Bossert, 2000. "Choice under complete uncertainty: axiomatic characterizations of some decision rules," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 16(2), pages 295-312.
    3. Barbera, Salvador & Dutta, Bhaskar & Sen, Arunava, 2005. "Corrigendum to "Strategy-proof social choice correspondences" [J. Econ. Theory 101 (2001) 374-394]," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 120(2), pages 275-275, February.
    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. Barbera, S. & Bossert, W. & Pattanaik, P.K., 2001. "Ranking Sets of Objects," Cahiers de recherche 2001-02, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
    2. Shin Sato, 2008. "On strategy-proof social choice correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(2), pages 331-343, August.
    3. Brandt, Felix & Saile, Christian & Stricker, Christian, 2022. "Strategyproof social choice when preferences and outcomes may contain ties," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    4. Burak Can & Peter Csoka & Emre Ergin, 2017. "How to choose a non-manipulable delegation?," KRTK-KTI WORKING PAPERS 1713, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    5. Lefgren, Lars J. & Stoddard, Olga B. & Stovall, John E., 2021. "Rationalizing self-defeating behaviors: Theory and evidence," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    6. Ján Palguta, 2011. "Voting Experiments: Measuring Vulnerability of Voting Procedures to Manipulation," Czech Economic Review, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, vol. 5(3), pages 324-345, November.
    7. Mahmoud, Ola, 2022. "Second-order uncertainty and naive diversification," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    8. Felix Brandt & Patrick Lederer, 2024. "Weak Strategyproofness in Randomized Social Choice," Papers 2412.11977, arXiv.org.
    9. Priscilla Man & Shino Takayama, 2013. "A unifying impossibility theorem," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 54(2), pages 249-271, October.
    10. Shurojit Chatterji & Arunava Sen, 2011. "Tops-only domains," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 46(2), pages 255-282, February.
    11. Erdamar, Bora & Sanver, M. Remzi & Sato, Shin, 2017. "Evaluationwise strategy-proofness," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 227-238.
    12. Carmelo Rodríguez-Álvarez, 2006. "Candidate Stability and Voting Correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 27(3), pages 545-570, December.
    13. José Alcantud & Ritxar Arlegi, 2008. "Ranking sets additively in decisional contexts: an axiomatic characterization," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 64(2), pages 147-171, March.
    14. Wolitzky, Alexander, 2009. "Fully sincere voting," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 720-735, November.
    15. Kerber, Manfred & Lange, Christoph & Rowat, Colin, 2016. "An introduction to mechanized reasoning," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 26-39.
    16. Arlegi, Ricardo, 2007. "Sequentially consistent rules of choice under complete uncertainty," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 135(1), pages 131-143, July.
    17. Mihir Bhattacharya & Ojasvi Khare, 2024. "Strategy-proof interval-social choice correspondences over extended single-peaked domains," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 53(3), pages 893-911, September.
    18. Larsson, Bo & Svensson, Lars-Gunnar, 2006. "Strategy-proof voting on the full preference domain," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 272-287, December.
    19. José Jimeno & Joaquín Pérez & Estefanía García, 2009. "An extension of the Moulin No Show Paradox for voting correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 33(3), pages 343-359, September.
    20. Thai Ha-Huy & Tuyet Mai Nguyen, 2019. "Optimal growth and Ramsey-Rawls criteria," Documents de recherche 19-02, Centre d'Études des Politiques Économiques (EPEE), Université d'Evry Val d'Essonne.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D7 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making

    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:ebl:ecbull:eb-14-00486. 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: .

    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.