IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v200y2024i1d10.1007_s11127-024-01146-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Balancing democracy: majoritarianism versus expression of preference intensity

Author

Listed:
  • Asaf D. M. Nitzan

    (Hi Auto)

  • Shmuel I. Nitzan

    (Bar-Ilan University)

Abstract

This paper evaluates three prominent voting systems: the Majority Rule (MR), Borda Rule (BR), and Plurality Rule (PR). Our analysis centers on the susceptibilities of each system to potential transgressions of two foundational principles: the respect for majority preference (majoritarianism) and the acknowledgment of the intensity of individual preferences. We operationalize the concept of 'cost' as the expected deviation from the aforementioned principles. A comparative assessment of MR, BR, and PR is undertaken in terms of their costs. Our findings underscore the superiority of PR over MR, whilst also highlighting the comparative advantage of MR against BR.

Suggested Citation

  • Asaf D. M. Nitzan & Shmuel I. Nitzan, 2024. "Balancing democracy: majoritarianism versus expression of preference intensity," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 200(1), pages 149-171, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:200:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s11127-024-01146-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11127-024-01146-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11127-024-01146-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11127-024-01146-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Salvador Barberà & Walter Bossert & Kotaro Suzumura, 2021. "Daunou’s voting rule and the lexicographic assignment of priorities," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(2), pages 259-289, February.
    2. William V. Gehrlein & Dominique Lepelley, 2017. "Elections, Voting Rules and Paradoxical Outcomes," Studies in Choice and Welfare, Springer, number 978-3-319-64659-6, June.
    3. Eyal Baharad & Shmuel Nitzan, 2011. "Condorcet vs. Borda in light of a dual majoritarian approach," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(2), pages 151-162, August.
    4. Baharad, Eyal & Nitzan, Shmuel, 2002. "Ameliorating Majority Decisiveness through Expression of Preference Intensity," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 96(4), pages 745-754, December.
    5. Walter Bossert & Kotaro Suzumura, 2017. "The greatest unhappiness of the least number," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 49(3), pages 637-655, December.
    6. Donald Saari, 2006. "Which is better: the Condorcet or Borda winner?," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 26(1), pages 107-129, January.
    7. Eyal Baharad & Shmuel Nitzan, 2007. "The Costs of Implementing the Majority Principle: The Golden Voting Rule," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 31(1), pages 69-84, April.
    8. Francesco Sinopoli & Giovanna Iannantuoni & Carlos Pimienta, 2015. "On stable outcomes of approval, plurality, and negative plurality games," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 44(4), pages 889-909, April.
    9. William V. Gehrlein & Dominique Lepelley, 2011. "Voting Paradoxes and Group Coherence," Studies in Choice and Welfare, Springer, number 978-3-642-03107-6, June.
    10. Rae, Douglas W., 1969. "Decision-Rules and Individual Values in Constitutional Choice," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 63(1), pages 40-56, March.
    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. Elise S. Brezis, 2023. "Regulating the Revolving Door of Regulators," Working Papers 2023-03, Bar-Ilan University, Department of Economics.
    2. Shmuel I. Nitzan & Asaf D.M. Nitzan, 2023. "Balancing Democracy: Majoritarianism vs. Expression of Preference Intensity," Working Papers 2023-02, Bar-Ilan University, Department of Economics.
    3. Eyal Baharad & Shmuel Nitzan, 2016. "Is majority consistency possible?," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(2), pages 287-299, February.
    4. Aleksei Y. Kondratev & Alexander S. Nesterov, 2020. "Measuring majority power and veto power of voting rules," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 183(1), pages 187-210, April.
    5. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Issofa Moyouwou & Hatem Smaoui, 2021. "Condorcet Efficiency of General Weighted Scoring Rules Under IAC: Indifference and Abstention," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Mostapha Diss & Vincent Merlin (ed.), Evaluating Voting Systems with Probability Models, pages 55-73, Springer.
    6. Sylvain Béal & Marc Deschamps & Mostapha Diss & Issofa Moyouwou, 2022. "Inconsistent weighting in weighted voting games," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 191(1), pages 75-103, April.
    7. Eric Kamwa, 2019. "On the Likelihood of the Borda Effect: The Overall Probabilities for General Weighted Scoring Rules and Scoring Runoff Rules," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 519-541, June.
    8. Abdelhalim El Ouafdi & Dominique Lepelley & Hatem Smaoui, 2020. "Probabilities of electoral outcomes: from three-candidate to four-candidate elections," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 88(2), pages 205-229, March.
    9. Harrison-Trainor, Matthew, 2022. "An analysis of random elections with large numbers of voters," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 68-84.
    10. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2019. "On some k-scoring rules for committee elections: agreement and Condorcet Principle," Working Papers hal-02147735, HAL.
    11. Diss, Mostapha & Mahajne, Muhammad, 2020. "Social acceptability of Condorcet committees," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 14-27.
    12. Eyal Baharad & Shmuel Nitzan, 2011. "Condorcet vs. Borda in light of a dual majoritarian approach," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(2), pages 151-162, August.
    13. Eric Kamwa, 2018. "On the Likelihood of the Borda Effect: The Overall Probabilities for General Weighted Scoring Rules and Scoring Runoff Rules," Working Papers hal-01786590, HAL.
    14. Mostapha Diss & Clinton Gabon Gassi & Eric Kamwa, 2024. "On the price of diversity for multiwinner elections under (weakly) separable scoring rules," Working Papers 2024-02, CRESE.
    15. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2018. "The Chamberlin-Courant Rule and the k-Scoring Rules: Agreement and Condorcet Committee Consistency," Working Papers hal-01757761, HAL.
    16. Diss, Mostapha & Tsvelikhovskiy, Boris, 2021. "Manipulable outcomes within the class of scoring voting rules," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 11-18.
    17. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Issofa Moyouwou & Hatem Smaoui, 2019. "Condorcet efficiency of general weighted scoring rules under IAC: indifference and abstention," Working Papers hal-02196387, HAL.
    18. Eric Kamwa & Issofa Moyouwou, 2019. "Susceptibility to Manipulation by Sincere Truncation : the Case of Scoring Rules and Scoring Runoff Systems," Working Papers hal-02185965, HAL.
    19. Ahmad Awde & Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Julien Yves Rolland & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2023. "Social Unacceptability for Simple Voting Procedures," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Sascha Kurz & Nicola Maaser & Alexander Mayer (ed.), Advances in Collective Decision Making, pages 25-42, Springer.
    20. Mostapha Diss & Clinton Gubong Gassi & Issofa Moyouwou, 2023. "Social acceptability and the majoritarian compromise rule," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 61(3), pages 489-510, October.

    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:kap:pubcho:v:200:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s11127-024-01146-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.