Asymptotics of the minimum manipulating coalition size for positional voting rules under impartial culture behaviour
We consider the problem of manipulation of elections using positional voting rules under impartial culture voter behaviour. We consider both the logical possibility of coalitional manipulation, and the number of voters who must be recruited to form a manipulating coalition. It is shown that the manipulation problem may be well approximated by a very simple linear program in two variables. This permits a comparative analysis of the asymptotic (large-population) manipulability of the various rules. It is seen that the manipulation resistance of positional rules with 5 or 6 (or more) candidates is quite different from the more commonly analyzed three- and four-candidate cases.
If 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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- David A. Smith, 1999. "Manipulability measures of common social choice functions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 16(4), pages 639-661.
- Geoffrey Pritchard & Arkadii Slinko, 2006. "On the Average Minimum Size of a Manipulating Coalition," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 27(2), pages 263-277, October.
- Maus, Stefan & Peters, Hans & Storcken, Ton, 2007.
"Minimal manipulability: Unanimity and nondictatorship,"
Journal of Mathematical Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 675-691, August.
- Maus,Stefan & Peters,Hans & Storcken,Ton, 2004. "Minimal manipulability: Unanimity and Nondictatorship," Research Memorandum 005, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
- Lepelley, Dominique & Mbih, Boniface, 1987. "The proportion of coalitionally unstable situations under the plurality rule," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 311-315.
- Geoffrey Pritchard & Mark Wilson, 2007. "Exact results on manipulability of positional voting rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 29(3), pages 487-513, October.
- 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, 09.
- Biung-Ghi Ju, 2005. "A Characterization of Plurality-Like Rules Based on Non-Manipulability, Restricted Efficiency, and Anonymity," WORKING PAPERS SERIES IN THEORETICAL AND APPLIED ECONOMICS 200509, University of Kansas, Department of Economics, revised Mar 2005.
- Wilson, Mark C. & Pritchard, Geoffrey, 2007. "Probability calculations under the IAC hypothesis," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 244-256, December.
- Satterthwaite, Mark Allen, 1975. "Strategy-proofness and Arrow's conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 187-217, April.
- Saari, Donald G, 1990. "Susceptibility to Manipulation," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 64(1), pages 21-41, January.
- Gibbard, Allan, 1973. "Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(4), pages 587-601, July. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)