IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/theord/v75y2013i1p59-77.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Varieties of failure of monotonicity and participation under five voting methods

Author

Listed:
  • Dan Felsenthal
  • Nicolaus Tideman

Abstract

In voting theory, monotonicity is the axiom that an improvement in the ranking of a candidate by voters cannot cause a candidate who would otherwise win to lose. The participation axiom states that the sincere report of a voter’s preferences cannot cause an outcome that the voter regards as less attractive than the one that would result from the voter’s non-participation. This article identifies three binary distinctions in the types of circumstances in which failures of monotonicity or participation can occur. Two of the three distinctions apply to monotonicity, while one of those and the third apply to participation. The distinction that is unique to monotonicity is whether the voters whose changed rankings demonstrate non-monotonicity are better off or worse off. The distinction that is unique to participation is whether the marginally participating voter causes his first choice to lose or his last choice to win. The overlapping distinction is whether the profile of voters’ rankings has a Condorcet winner or a cycle at the top. This article traces the occurrence of all of the resulting combination of characteristics in the voting methods that can exhibit failures of monotonicity. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Dan Felsenthal & Nicolaus Tideman, 2013. "Varieties of failure of monotonicity and participation under five voting methods," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(1), pages 59-77, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:theord:v:75:y:2013:i:1:p:59-77
    DOI: 10.1007/s11238-012-9306-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11238-012-9306-7
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11238-012-9306-7?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. Richard Potthoff, 2011. "Condorcet Polling," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 148(1), pages 67-86, July.
    2. Moulin, Herve, 1988. "Condorcet's principle implies the no show paradox," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 53-64, June.
    3. Jerry S. Kelly & Donald E. Campbell, 2002. "Non-monotonicity does not imply the no-show paradox," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 19(3), pages 513-515.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dominique Lepelley & Hatem Smaoui, 2019. "Comparing Two Ways for Eliminating Candidates in Three-Alternative Elections Using Sequential Scoring Rules," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 787-804, August.
    2. Uuganbaatar Ninjbat, 2015. "Impossibility theorems are modified and unified," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(4), pages 849-866, December.
    3. Dominique Lepelley & Issofa Moyouwou & Hatem Smaoui, 2018. "Monotonicity paradoxes in three-candidate elections using scoring elimination rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 50(1), pages 1-33, January.
    4. Hannu Nurmi, 2020. "The Incidence of Some Voting Paradoxes Under Domain Restrictions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(6), pages 1107-1120, December.
    5. Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit, 2021. "Measuring Violations of Positive Involvement in Voting," Papers 2106.11502, arXiv.org.
    6. Conal Duddy, 2014. "Condorcet’s principle and the strong no-show paradoxes," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(2), pages 275-285, August.
    7. Dan S. Felsenthal & Hannu Nurmi, 2016. "Two types of participation failure under nine voting methods in variable electorates," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 168(1), pages 115-135, July.
    8. Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit, 2023. "Split Cycle: a new Condorcet-consistent voting method independent of clones and immune to spoilers," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 197(1), pages 1-62, October.
    9. Nicholas R. Miller, 2017. "Closeness matters: monotonicity failure in IRV elections with three candidates," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 173(1), pages 91-108, October.
    10. Dan S. Felsenthal & Hannu Nurmi, 2018. "Monotonicity Violations by Borda’s Elimination and Nanson’s Rules: A Comparison," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(4), pages 637-664, August.
    11. David McCune & Jennifer Wilson, 2023. "Ranked-choice voting and the spoiler effect," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 196(1), pages 19-50, July.
    12. Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit, 2020. "Split Cycle: A New Condorcet Consistent Voting Method Independent of Clones and Immune to Spoilers," Papers 2004.02350, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2023.
    13. Felsenthal, Dan S. & Tideman, Nicolaus, 2014. "Interacting double monotonicity failure with direction of impact under five voting methods," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 57-66.

    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. Núñez, Matías & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2017. "Revisiting the connection between the no-show paradox and monotonicity," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 9-17.
    2. Conal Duddy, 2014. "Condorcet’s principle and the strong no-show paradoxes," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(2), pages 275-285, August.
    3. Hannu Nurmi, 2004. "Monotonicity and its Cognates in the Theory of Choice," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 121(1), pages 25-49, October.
    4. Eichner, Thomas, 2004. "Voting Procedures Under Uncertainty: By Nurmi, H., 155 pp., Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 2002, Hardcover, Euro 54.95," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 283-285, March.
    5. De Donder, Philippe & Le Breton, Michel & Truchon, Michel, 2000. "Choosing from a weighted tournament1," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 85-109, July.
    6. Conal Duddy, 2017. "Geometry of run-off elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 173(3), pages 267-288, December.
    7. M. Sanver & William Zwicker, 2012. "Monotonicity properties and their adaptation to irresolute social choice rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 39(2), pages 371-398, July.
    8. Brandl, Florian & Peters, Dominik, 2022. "Approval voting under dichotomous preferences: A catalogue of characterizations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    9. Joaquín Pérez & José L. Jimeno & Estefanía García, 2015. "No Show Paradox and the Golden Number in Generalized Condorcet Voting Methods," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 497-513, May.
    10. McMorris, F.R. & Mulder, Henry Martyn & Novick, Beth & Powers, Robert C., 2021. "Majority rule for profiles of arbitrary length, with an emphasis on the consistency axiom," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 164-174.
    11. 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.
    12. Bilge Yilmaz & Murat R. Sertel, 1999. "The majoritarian compromise is majoritarian-optimal and subgame-perfect implementable," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 16(4), pages 615-627.
    13. Felsenthal, Dan S. & Tideman, Nicolaus, 2014. "Interacting double monotonicity failure with direction of impact under five voting methods," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 57-66.
    14. David McCune & Adam Graham-Squire, 2023. "Monotonicity Anomalies in Scottish Local Government Elections," Papers 2305.17741, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2023.
    15. Nehring, Klaus & Puppe, Clemens, 2019. "Resource allocation by frugal majority rule," Working Paper Series in Economics 131, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    16. Stefano Vannucci, 2006. "The Proportional Lottery Protocol is Strongly Participatory and VNM-Strategy-Proof," Department of Economics University of Siena 490, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    17. Yasunori Okumura, 2019. "What proportion of sincere voters guarantees efficiency?," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 53(2), pages 299-311, August.
    18. Le Breton, Michel, 2016. "The Condorcet Principle Implies the Proxy Voting Paradox," TSE Working Papers 16-619, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    19. Karel Kouba & Michael Haman, 2021. "When do voters boycott elections with participation quorums?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 189(1), pages 279-300, October.
    20. Paul Harrenstein & Marie-Louise Lackner & Martin Lackner, 2019. "A Mathematical Analysis of an Election System Proposed by Gottlob Frege," Papers 1907.03643, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2020.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Elections; Non-monotonicity; Participation; Strategic voting; Voting paradoxes; Voting methods; Voting procedures; D71; D72;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:theord:v:75:y:2013:i:1:p:59-77. 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.