Multi-stage voting, sequential elimination and Condorcet consistency
A class of voting procedures based on repeated ballots and elimination of one candidate in each round is shown to always induce an outcome in the top cycle and is thus Condorcet consistent, when voters behave strategically. This is an important class as it covers multi-stage, sequential elimination extensions of all standard one-shot voting rules (with the exception of negative voting), the same one-shot rules that would fail Condorcet consistency. The necessity of repeated ballots and sequential elimination are demonstrated by further showing that Condorcet consistency would fail in all standard voting rules that violate one or both of these conditions.
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.:
- Moulin, Herve, 1980. "Implementing efficient, anonymous and neutral social choice functions," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 249-269, December.
- Strumpf, Koleman S, 2002. "Strategic Competition in Sequential Election Contests," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 111(3-4), pages 377-97, June.
- B. Douglas Bernheim & Antonio Rangel & Luis Rayo, 2006. "The Power of the Last Word in Legislative Policy Making," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(5), pages 1161-1190, 09.
- Battaglini, Marco, 2005.
"Sequential voting with abstention,"
Games and Economic Behavior,
Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 445-463, May.
- Douglas Gale & Hamid Sabourian, 2005. "Complexity and Competition," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(3), pages 739-769, 05.
- Kalyan Chatterjee & Hamid Sabourian, 1998.
"Multiperson Bargaining and Strategic Complexity,"
CRIEFF Discussion Papers
9808, Centre for Research into Industry, Enterprise, Finance and the Firm.
- Francesco Sinopoli & Bhaskar Dutta & Jean-François Laslier, 2006. "Approval voting: three examples," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 35(1), pages 27-38, December.
- Dhillon, Amrita & Lockwood, Ben, 2004.
"When are plurality rule voting games dominance-solvable?,"
Games and Economic Behavior,
Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 55-75, January.
- Dhillon, A. & Lockwood, B., 1999. "When are Plurality Rule Voting Games Dominance-Solvable?," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 549, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
- McKelvey, Richard D. & Niemi, Richard G., 1978. "A multistage game representation of sophisticated voting for binary procedures," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 1-22, June.
- Dutta, Bhaskar & Jackson, Matthew O. & Le Breton, Michel, 2002. "Voting by Successive Elimination and Strategic Candidacy," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 103(1), pages 190-218, March.
- Eric Maskin, 1999. "Nash Equilibrium and Welfare Optimality," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 66(1), pages 23-38.
- Sabourian, Hamid, 2004. "Bargaining and markets: complexity and the competitive outcome," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 116(2), pages 189-228, June.
- Moulin, Herve, 1979. "Dominance Solvable Voting Schemes," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(6), pages 1137-51, November.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jetheo:v:144:y:2009:i:3:p:1278-1299. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.