Distance rationalization of voting rules
The concept of distance rationalizability allows one to define new voting rules or rationalize existing ones via a consensus, i.e., a class of elections that have a unique, indisputable winner, and a distance over elections: A candidate is declared an election winner if she is the consensus candidate in one of the nearest consensus elections. Many classic voting rules are defined or can be represented in this way. In this paper, we focus on the power and the limitations of the distance rationalizability approach. Lerer and Nitzan (J Econ Theory 37(1):191–201, 1985 ) and Campbell and Nitzan (Soc Choice Welf 3(1):1–16, 1986 ) show that if we do not place any restrictions on the notions of distance and consensus then essentially all voting rules can be distance-rationalized. We identify a natural class of distances on elections—votewise distances—which depend on the submitted votes in a simple and transparent manner, and investigate which voting rules can be rationalized via distances of this type. We also study axiomatic properties of rules that can be defined via votewise distances. Copyright Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 45 (2015)
Issue (Month): 2 (September)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.springer.com|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.springer.com/economics/economic+theory/journal/355|
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.:
- Young, H. P., 1977. "Extending Condorcet's rule," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 335-353, December.
- Wade D. Cook & Lawrence M. Seiford, 1982. "On the Borda-Kendall Consensus Method for Priority Ranking Problems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(6), pages 621-637, June.
- Marcus Pivato, 2013. "Voting rules as statistical estimators," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(2), pages 581-630, February.
- Olivier Hudry & Bernard Monjardet, 2010.
"Consensus theories: an oriented survey,"
Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers)
- Olivier Hudry & Bernard Monjardet, 2010. "Consensus theories : An oriented survey," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 10057, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
- Olivier Hudry & Bernard Monjardet, 2010. "Consensus theories. An oriented survey," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-00642167, HAL.
- Moulin,Hervi, 1991. "Axioms of Cooperative Decision Making," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521424585, May.
- Lerer, Ehud & Nitzan, Shmuel, 1985. "Some general results on the metric rationalization for social decision rules," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 191-201, October.
- Shmuel Nitzan, 1989. "More on the Preservation of Preference Proximity and Anonymous Social Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 104(1), pages 187-190.
- Farkas, Daniel & Nitzan, Shmuel, 1979. "The Borda Rule and Pareto Stability: A Comment," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(5), pages 1305-1306, September.
- Nick Baigent, 1987. "Preference Proximity and Anonymous Social Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 102(1), pages 161-169.
- Baigent, Nick, 1987. "Metric rationalisation of social choice functions according to principles of social choice," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 59-65, February.
- Fuad Aleskerov & Vyacheslav Chistyakov & Valery Kalyagin, 2010. "Social threshold aggregations," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 35(4), pages 627-646, October.
- Aleskerov, Fuad & Chistyakov, Vyacheslav V. & Kalyagin, Valery, 2010. "The threshold aggregation," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 261-262, May.
- Nick Baigent & Christian Klamler, 2003. "Transitive closure, proximity and intransitivities," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 23(1), pages 175-181, December.
- Michael Miller & Daniel Osherson, 2009. "Methods for distance-based judgment aggregation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 32(4), pages 575-601, May.