IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/joecth/v22y2003i3p685-688.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Borda rule, Condorcet consistency and Condorcet stability

Author

Listed:
  • Eyal Baharad
  • Shmuel Nitzan

Abstract

The Borda rule is known to be the least vulnerable scoring rule to Condorcet inconsistency, Saari (2000). Such inconsistency occurs when the Condorcet winner (the alternative which is preferred to any other alternative by a simple majority) is not selected by the Borda rule. This note exposes the relationship between the Borda rule and the Condorcet q-majority principle as well as the Condorcet q-majority voting rule. The main result establishes that the Borda rule is Condorcet q-majority consistent when where k is the number of alternatives. The second result establishes that is the minimal degree of majority decisiveness corresponding to the Borda rule under sincere voting. The same majority is required to ensure decisiveness under the Borda rule and to ensure that a q-rule (the generalized q-majority Condorcet rule) is a voting rule. Copyright Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Suggested Citation

  • Eyal Baharad & Shmuel Nitzan, 2003. "The Borda rule, Condorcet consistency and Condorcet stability," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 22(3), pages 685-688, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:joecth:v:22:y:2003:i:3:p:685-688
    DOI: 10.1007/s00199-002-0318-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s00199-002-0318-3
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00199-002-0318-3?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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Sebastien Courtin & Mathieu Martin & Issofa Moyouwou, 2013. "The q-Condorcet efficiency of positional rules," Working Papers hal-00914907, HAL.
    2. 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.
    3. Pablo Amorós, 2009. "Unequivocal majority and Maskin-monotonicity," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 33(4), pages 521-532, November.
    4. Sebastien Courtin & Mathieu Martin & Bertrand Tchantcho, 2013. "Positional rules and q- Condorcet consistency," Working Papers hal-00914900, HAL.
    5. Diss, Mostapha & Mahajne, Muhammad, 2020. "Social acceptability of Condorcet committees," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 14-27.
    6. Sébastien Courtin & Mathieu Martin & Bertrand Tchantcho, 2015. "Positional rules and q-Condorcet consistency," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 19(3), pages 229-245, September.
    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. Sébastien Courtin & Mathieu Martin & Issofa Moyouwou, 2015. "The q-majority efficiency of positional rules," Post-Print hal-00914907, HAL.
    9. Mostapha Diss & Michele Gori, 2022. "Majority properties of positional social preference correspondences," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(2), pages 319-347, March.
    10. 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.
    11. Muhammad Mahajne & Oscar Volij, 2019. "Condorcet winners and social acceptability," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 53(4), pages 641-653, December.
    12. Sébastien Courtin & Mathieu Martin & Issofa Moyouwou, 2015. "The $$q$$ q -majority efficiency of positional rules," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(1), pages 31-49, July.
    13. 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.
    14. Sébastien Courtin & Mathieu Martin & Bertrand Tchantcho, 2015. "Positional rules and q-Condorcet consistency," Post-Print hal-00914900, HAL.
    15. Clinton Gubong Gassi & Eric Kamwa, 2024. "q-fixed majority efficiency of committee scoring rules," Working Papers 2024-17, CRESE.
    16. Marcel Richter & Kam-Chau Wong, 2008. "Preference densities and social choices," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 36(2), pages 225-238, August.
    17. Sandro Ambuehl & B. Douglas Bernheim, 2021. "Interpreting the will of the people: social preferences over ordinal outcomes," ECON - Working Papers 395, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Jan 2024.
    18. Sandro Ambuehl & B. Douglas Bernheim, 2021. "Interpreting the Will of the People - A Positive Analysis of Ordinal Preference Aggregation," CESifo Working Paper Series 9317, CESifo.
    19. Sébastien Courtin & Mathieu Martin & Issofa Moyouwou, 2013. "The q-Condorcet efficiency of positional rules," THEMA Working Papers 2013-29, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    20. Akira Okada & Ryoji Sawa, 2016. "An evolutionary approach to social choice problems with q-quota rules," KIER Working Papers 936, Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research.
    21. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Keywords and Phrases: The Borda rule; q-rules; Condorcet consistency; Condorcet stability; Majority decisiveness.; JEL Classification Numbers: D71; D72.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations

    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:spr:joecth:v:22:y:2003:i:3:p:685-688. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.