Borda’s Paradox with weighted scoring rules
No abstract is available for this item.
Volume (Year): 38 (2012)
Issue (Month): 1 (January)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://link.springer.de/link/service/journals/00355/index.htm |
|Order Information:||Web: http://link.springer.de/orders.htm|
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.:
- Tataru, Maria & Merlin, Vincent, 1997. "On the relationship of the Condorcet winner and positional voting rules," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 81-90, August.
- Davide Cervone & William Gehrlein & William Zwicker, 2005. "Which Scoring Rule Maximizes Condorcet Efficiency Under Iac?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 58(2), pages 145-185, 03.
- Van Newenhizen, Jill, 1992. "The Borda Method Is Most Likely to Respect the Condorcet Principle," Economic Theory, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 69-83, January.
- Thom Bezembinder, 1996. "The plurality majority converse under single peakedness," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 365-380.
- Gehrlein, William V., 2004. "The effectiveness of weighted scoring rules when pairwise majority rule cycles exist," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 69-85, January.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:sochwe:v:38:y:2012:i:1:p:121-136. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Guenther Eichhorn)or (Christopher F Baum)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.