IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/sochwe/v18y2001i3p601-616.html

The Strong No Show Paradoxes are a common flaw in Condorcet voting correspondences

Author

Listed:
  • Joaqui´n Pérez

    (Departamento de Fundamentos de Economía e Historia Económica, Universidad de Alcalá, Plaza de la Victoria, 28802 Alcalá de Henares Spain)

Abstract

The No Show Paradox (there is a voter who would rather not vote) is known to affect every Condorcet voting function. This paper analyses two strong versions of this paradox in the context of Condorcet voting correspondences. The first says that there is a voter whose favorite candidate loses the election if she votes honestly, but gets elected if she abstains. The second says that there is a voter whose least preferred candidate gets elected if she votes honestly, but loses the election if she abstains. All Condorcet correspondences satisfying some weak domination properties are shown to be affected by these strong forms of the paradox. On the other hand, with the exception of the Simpson-Cramer Minmax and the Young rule, all the Condorcet correspondences that (to the best of our knowledge) are proposed in the literature suffer from these two paradoxes.

Suggested Citation

  • Joaqui´n Pérez, 2001. "The Strong No Show Paradoxes are a common flaw in Condorcet voting correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 18(3), pages 601-616.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:sochwe:v:18:y:2001:i:3:p:601-616
    Note: Received: 30 November 1999/Accepted: 27 March 2000
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.de/link/service/journals/00355/papers/1018003/10180601.pdf
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    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:sochwe:v:18:y:2001:i:3:p:601-616. 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.