Equilibrium and effectiveness of two-parameter scoring rules
We study a cardinal model of voting with three alternatives where voters’ von Neumann Morgenstern utilities are private information. We consider voting protocols given by two-parameter scoring rules, as introduced by Myerson (2002). For these voting rules, we show that all symmetric Bayes Nash equilibria are sincere, and have a very specific form. These equilibria are unique for a wide range of model parameters, and we can therefore compare the equilibrium performance of different rules. Computational results regarding the effectiveness of different scoring rules (where effectiveness is captured by a modification of the effectiveness measure proposed in Weber, 1978) suggest that those which most effectively represent voters’ preferences allow for the expression of preference intensity, in contrast to more commonly used rules such as the plurality rule, and the Borda Count. While approval voting allows for the expression of preference intensity, it does not maximize effectiveness as it fails to unambiguously convey voters’ ordinal preference rankings.
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.
Volume (Year): 68 (2014)
Issue (Month): C ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505565|
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.:
- Ritzberger, Klaus, 2002. "Foundations of Non-Cooperative Game Theory," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199247868.
- repec:esx:essedp:732 is not listed on IDEAS
- Holmstrom, Bengt & Myerson, Roger B, 1983.
"Efficient and Durable Decision Rules with Incomplete Information,"
Econometric Society, vol. 51(6), pages 1799-1819, November.
- Bengt Holmstrom & Roger B. Myerson, 1981. "Efficient and Durable Decision Rules with Incomplete Information," Discussion Papers 495, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Lucia Buenrostro & Amrita Dhillon & Peter Vida, 2013. "Scoring rule voting games and dominance solvability," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(2), pages 329-352, February.
- Buenrostro, Lucia & Dhillon, Amrita, 2004. "Scoring Rule Voting Games And Dominance Solvability," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 698, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
- Miralles, Antonio, 2012. "Cardinal Bayesian allocation mechanisms without transfers," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 147(1), pages 179-206.
- Robert J. Weber, 1978. "Comparison of Public Choice Systems," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 498, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
- Börgers, Tilman & Postl, Peter, 2009. "Efficient compromising," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(5), pages 2057-2076, September.
- Tilman Börgers & Peter Postl, 2005. "Efficient Compromising," Levine's Bibliography 784828000000000188, UCLA Department of Economics.
- Tilman Börgers & Peter Postl, 2005. "Efficient Compromising," Levine's Bibliography 122247000000000801, UCLA Department of Economics.
- Tilman Börgers & Peter Postl, 2008. "Efficient Compromising," Discussion Papers 06-11R, Department of Economics, University of Birmingham.
- André Blais, 2002. "Why Is there So Little Strategic Voting in Canadian Plurality Rule Elections?," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 50(3), pages 445-454, 08.
- Postl Peter, 2011. "Strategy-Proof Compromises," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 1-37, October.
- Peter Postl, 2011. "Strategy-Proof Compromises," Discussion Papers 10-12r, Department of Economics, University of Birmingham.
- Schmitz, Patrick W. & Tröger, Thomas, 2012. "The (sub-)optimality of the majority rule," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 651-665.
- Schmitz, Patrick W. & Tröger, Thomas, 2011. "The (sub-)optimality of the majority rule," MPRA Paper 32716, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Myerson, Roger B., 2002. "Comparison of Scoring Rules in Poisson Voting Games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 103(1), pages 219-251, March.
- Roger B. Myerson, 1998. "Comparison of Scoring Rules in Poisson Voting Games," Discussion Papers 1214, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Roger B. Myerson, 2000. "Comparison of Scoring Rules in Poisson Voting Games," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 0686, Econometric Society.
- Jose Apesteguia & Miguel A. Ballester & Rosa Ferrer, 2011. "On the Justice of Decision Rules," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 78(1), pages 1-16.
- repec:cup:apsrev:v:87:y:1993:i:01:p:102-114_09 is not listed on IDEAS
- Matthew O Jackson & Hugo F Sonnenschein, 2007. "Overcoming Incentive Constraints by Linking Decisions -super-1," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 75(1), pages 241-257, 01.
- Wade D. Cook & Moshe Kress, 1985. "Ordinal Ranking with Intensity of Preference," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(1), pages 26-32, January.
- Rochet, Jean-Charles, 1987. "A necessary and sufficient condition for rationalizability in a quasi-linear context," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 191-200, April. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)