Sequential composition of voting rules in multi-issue domains
In many real-world group decision making problems, the set of alternatives is a Cartesian product of finite value domains for each of a given set of variables (or issues). Dealing with such domains leads to the following well-known dilemma: either ask the voters to vote separately on each issue, which may lead to the so-called multiple election paradoxes as soon as voters' preferences are not separable; or allow voters to express their full preferences on the set of all combinations of values, which is practically impossible as soon as the number of issues and/or the size of the domains are more than a few units. We try to reconciliate both views and find a middle way, by relaxing the extremely demanding separability restriction into this much more reasonable one: there exists a linear order on the set of issues such that for each voter, every issue is preferentially independent of given . This leads us to define a family of sequential voting rules, defined as the sequential composition of local voting rules. These rules relate to the setting of conditional preference networks (CP-nets) recently developed in the Artificial Intelligence literature. Lastly, we study in detail how these sequential rules inherit, or do not inherit, the properties of their local components.
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.:
- Gilbert Laffond & Jean Lainé & Jean-François Laslier, 1996. "Composition-consistent tournament solutions and social choice functions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 13(1), pages 75-93, January.
- İpek Özkal-Sanver & M. Sanver, 2006. "Ensuring Pareto Optimality by Referendum Voting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 27(1), pages 211-219, August.
- Plott, Charles R. & Levine, Michael E., .
"A Model of Agenda Influence on Committee Decisions,"
143, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
- Plott, Charles R & Levine, Michael E, 1978. "A Model of Agenda Influence on Committee Decisions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 68(1), pages 146-60, March.
- W. M. Gorman, 1968. "The Structure of Utility Functions," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(4), pages 367-390.
- Hodge, Jonathan K. & TerHaar, Micah, 2008. "Classifying interdependence in multidimensional binary preferences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 190-204, March.
- Bradley, W. James & Hodge, Jonathan K. & Kilgour, D. Marc, 2005. "Separable discrete preferences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 335-353, May.
- Brams, Steven J. & Kilgour, D. Marc & Zwicker, William, 1997. "Voting on Referenda: The Separability Problem and Possible Solutions," Working Papers 97-15, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
- Marco Scarsini, 1998.
"A strong paradox of multiple elections,"
Social Choice and Welfare,
Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 15(2), pages 237-238.
- Steven J. Brams & William S. Zwicker & D. Marc Kilgour, 1998.
"The paradox of multiple elections,"
Social Choice and Welfare,
Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 15(2), pages 211-236.
- Michel Le Breton & Arunava Sen, 1999. "Separable Preferences, Strategyproofness, and Decomposability," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 67(3), pages 605-628, May.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:matsoc:v:57:y:2009:i:3:p:304-324. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.