IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/sochwe/v46y2016i3d10.1007_s00355-015-0930-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The difference between manipulability indices in the IC and IANC models

Author

Listed:
  • Yuliya Veselova

    (National Research University Higher School of Economics
    Institute of Control Sciences of Russian Academy of Sciences)

Abstract

We consider the calculation of Nitzan–Kelly’s manipulability index in the impartial anonymous and neutral culture (IANC) model. We provide a new theoretical study of this model and an estimation for the maximal difference between manipulability indices in the IANC model and a basic model, the impartial culture (IC). The asymptotic behavior of this difference is studied with the help of the impartial anonymous culture (IAC) model. It is shown that the difference between the IAC and IANC models tends to zero as the number of alternatives or the number of voters grows. These results hold for any other probabilistic measure that is anonymous and neutral. Finally, we calculate Nitzan–Kelly’s index in the IANC model for four social choice rules and compare it with the IC model.

Suggested Citation

  • Yuliya Veselova, 2016. "The difference between manipulability indices in the IC and IANC models," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(3), pages 609-638, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:sochwe:v:46:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s00355-015-0930-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s00355-015-0930-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00355-015-0930-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00355-015-0930-3?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 look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. William Gehrlein & Peter Fishburn, 1976. "Condorcet's paradox and anonymous preference profiles," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 1-18, June.
    2. Shin Sato, 2008. "On strategy-proof social choice correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(2), pages 331-343, August.
    3. Kuga, Kiyoshi & Nagatani, Hiroaki, 1974. "Voter Antagonism and the Paradox of Voting," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 42(6), pages 1045-1067, November.
    4. Lepelley, Dominique & Valognes, Fabrice, 2003. "Voting Rules, Manipulability and Social Homogeneity," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 116(1-2), pages 165-184, July.
    5. Kelly, Jerry S, 1977. "Strategy-Proofness and Social Choice Functions without Singlevaluedness," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(2), pages 439-446, March.
    6. Geoffrey Pritchard & Mark Wilson, 2007. "Exact results on manipulability of positional voting rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 29(3), pages 487-513, October.
    7. Sven Berg, 1985. "Paradox of voting under an urn model: The effect of homogeneity," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 377-387, January.
    8. Shmuel Nitzan, 1985. "The vulnerability of point-voting schemes to preference variation and strategic manipulation," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 349-370, January.
    9. Hans Peters & Souvik Roy & Ton Storcken, 2012. "On the manipulability of approval voting and related scoring rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 39(2), pages 399-429, July.
    10. Arkadii Slinko, 2006. "How the size of a coalition affects its chances to influence an election," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 26(1), pages 143-153, January.
    11. Pierre Favardin & Dominique Lepelley, 2006. "Some Further Results on the Manipulability of Social Choice Rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 26(3), pages 485-509, June.
    12. Satterthwaite, Mark Allen, 1975. "Strategy-proofness and Arrow's conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 187-217, April.
    13. William V. Gehrlein & Dominique Lepelley, 2011. "Voting Paradoxes and Group Coherence," Studies in Choice and Welfare, Springer, number 978-3-642-03107-6, December.
    14. Gibbard, Allan, 1973. "Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(4), pages 587-601, July.
    15. Yuliya A. Veselova, 2014. "The Manipulability Index in the IANC Model," Springer Optimization and Its Applications, in: Fuad Aleskerov & Boris Goldengorin & Panos M. Pardalos (ed.), Clusters, Orders, and Trees: Methods and Applications, edition 127, pages 391-404, Springer.
    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. Karabekyan, D., 2022. "On the stability of results for aggregation procedures," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 57(5), pages 24-37.
    2. Alexander V. Karpov, 2018. "An Informational Basis for Voting Rules," HSE Working papers WP BRP 188/EC/2018, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    3. Alexander Karpov, 2020. "The likelihood of single-peaked preferences under classic and new probability distribution assumptions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 55(4), pages 629-644, December.
    4. Alexander Karpov, 2017. "Preference Diversity Orderings," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 753-774, July.

    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. Yuliya A. Veselova, 2020. "Does Incomplete Information Reduce Manipulability?," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 523-548, June.
    2. Diss, Mostapha & Tsvelikhovskiy, Boris, 2021. "Manipulable outcomes within the class of scoring voting rules," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 11-18.
    3. James Green-Armytage & T. Tideman & Rafael Cosman, 2016. "Statistical evaluation of voting rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(1), pages 183-212, January.
    4. Lirong Xia, 2022. "The Impact of a Coalition: Assessing the Likelihood of Voter Influence in Large Elections," Papers 2202.06411, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2023.
    5. Eric Kamwa, 2022. "Scoring Rules, Ballot Truncation, and the Truncation Paradox," Working Papers hal-03632662, HAL.
    6. Eric Kamwa, 2022. "Scoring rules, ballot truncation, and the truncation paradox," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 192(1), pages 79-97, July.
    7. Aleskerov, Fuad & Karabekyan, Daniel & Sanver, M. Remzi & Yakuba, Vyacheslav, 2012. "On the manipulability of voting rules: The case of 4 and 5 alternatives," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 67-73.
    8. James Green-Armytage, 2014. "Strategic voting and nomination," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(1), pages 111-138, January.
    9. Mostapha Diss, 2015. "Strategic manipulability of self-selective social choice rules," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 229(1), pages 347-376, June.
    10. Yuliya A. Veselova, 2016. "Does Incomplete Information Reduce Manipulability?," HSE Working papers WP BRP 152/EC/2016, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    11. Brandt, Felix & Saile, Christian & Stricker, Christian, 2022. "Strategyproof social choice when preferences and outcomes may contain ties," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    12. Gehrlein, William V. & Moyouwou, Issofa & Lepelley, Dominique, 2013. "The impact of voters’ preference diversity on the probability of some electoral outcomes," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 352-365.
    13. Sebastien Courtin & Boniface Mbih & Issofa Moyouwou, 2009. "Susceptibility to coalitional strategic sponsoring The case of parliamentary agendas," Post-Print hal-00914855, HAL.
    14. James Green-Armytage, 2023. "A Dodgson-Hare synthesis," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 458-470, September.
    15. Bednay, Dezső & Moskalenko, Anna & Tasnádi, Attila, 2019. "Dictatorship versus manipulability," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 72-76.
    16. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa, 2019. "Simulations in Models of Preference Aggregation," Working Papers hal-02424936, HAL.
    17. Maksim Gladyshev, 2019. "Vulnerability Of Voting Paradoxes As A Criteria For Voting Procedure Selection," HSE Working papers WP BRP 70/PS/2019, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    18. Marie-Louise Lackner & Martin Lackner, 2017. "On the likelihood of single-peaked preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(4), pages 717-745, April.
    19. Fuad Aleskerov & Daniel Karabekyan & Remzi Sanver & Vyacheslav Yakuba, 2009. "Evaluating the Degree of Manipulability of Certain Aggregation Procedures under Multiple Choices," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, issue 1-2, pages 37-61.
    20. Felix Brandt, 2015. "Set-monotonicity implies Kelly-strategyproofness," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(4), pages 793-804, December.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C6 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling
    • D7 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making

    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:46:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s00355-015-0930-3. 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.