IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/f/c/psa232.html

Remzi Sanver

Citations

Many of the citations below have been collected in an experimental project, CitEc, where a more detailed citation analysis can be found. These are citations from works listed in RePEc that could be analyzed mechanically. So far, only a minority of all works could be analyzed. See under "Corrections" how you can help improve the citation analysis.

Working papers

  1. Jean Lainé & Jérôme Lang & İpek Özkal-Sanver & M. Remzi Sanver, 2025. "Pareto-efficiency of ordinal multiwinner voting rules," Post-Print hal-05076777, HAL.

    Cited by:

    1. Maciej Kardas, 2025. "Application of the Pareto Principle in Quality Management through an Integrated Model of Statistical Process Control and Design of Experiments," Virtual Economics, The London Academy of Science and Business, vol. 8(3), pages 44-79, November.

  2. Ali Ozkes & M. Remzi Sanver, 2023. "Uniform Random Dictatorship: A characterization without strategy-proofness ," Post-Print hal-04308099, HAL.

    Cited by:

    1. H'ector Hermida-Rivera, 2025. "Self-Equivalent Voting Rules," Papers 2506.15310, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2026.

  3. Olivier Cailloux & Beatrice Napolitano & M. Remzi Sanver, 2022. "Compromising as an equal loss principle," Post-Print hal-03665048, HAL.

    Cited by:

    1. Hatzivelkos, Aleksandar, 2024. "Note on compromise axiom," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 38-47.

  4. Umut Keskin & M. Remzi Sanver & H. Berkay Tosunlu, 2022. "Monotonicity violations under plurality with a runoff: the case of French presidential elections," Post-Print hal-03767264, HAL.

    Cited by:

    1. David McCune & Adam Graham-Squire, 2024. "Monotonicity anomalies in Scottish local government elections," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 63(1), pages 69-101, August.
    2. Salvatore Barbaro & Anna-Sophie Kurella & Maike Roth, 2024. "Electoral outcomes versus voters’ preferences: On the different tales the data can tell," Working Papers 2412, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    3. David McCune & Adam Graham-Squire, 2023. "Monotonicity Anomalies in Scottish Local Government Elections," Papers 2305.17741, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2023.

  5. Jean-François Laslier & Matias Nunez & M. Remzi Sanver, 2021. "A solution to the two-person implementation problem," Post-Print hal-03498370, HAL.

    Cited by:

    1. Margarita Kirneva & Matias Nunez, 2021. "Voting by Simultaneous Vetoes," Working Papers halshs-03240630, HAL.
    2. Kirneva, Margarita & Núñez, Matías, 2026. "Strengthening incentives for truth-telling in Majority voting," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 234(C).
    3. Jain, Ritesh & Korpela, Ville & Lombardi, Michele, 2025. "Two-player rationalizable implementation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    4. Damien Bol & Jean-François Laslier & Matías Núñez, 2022. "Two Person Bargaining Mechanisms: A Laboratory Experiment," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(6), pages 1145-1177, December.
    5. Bogomolnaia, Anna & Holzman, Ron & Moulin, Hervé, 2023. "On guarantees, vetoes and random dictators," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 18(1), January.
    6. Federico Echenique & Matías Núñez, 2025. "Price and Choose," Post-Print hal-05511714, HAL.
    7. Olivier Cailloux & Matías Núñez & M. Remzi Sanver, 2024. "Two principles for two-person social choice," Post-Print hal-05511713, HAL.
    8. Mehmet Barlo & Nuh Aygün Dalkıran, 2022. "Computational implementation," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(4), pages 605-633, December.
    9. Anna bogomolnaia Ron Holzman Herve Moulin, 2021. "Wost Case in Voting and Bargaining," Papers 2104.02316, arXiv.org.
    10. Núñez, Matías & Pimienta, Carlos & Xefteris, Dimitrios, 2022. "On the implementation of the median," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    11. Anna Bogomolnaia & Ron Holzman & Hervé Moulin, 2021. "Worst Case in Voting and Bargaining," Post-Print halshs-03196999, HAL.

  6. Justin Kruger & M. Remzi Sanver, 2021. "An Arrovian impossibility in combining ranking and evaluation," Post-Print hal-03347632, HAL.

    Cited by:

    1. Stefano Vannucci, 2022. "Agenda manipulation-proofness, stalemates, and redundant elicitation in preference aggregation. Exposing the bright side of Arrow's theorem," Papers 2210.03200, arXiv.org.
    2. Santos-García, Gustavo & Alcantud, José Carlos R., 2025. "A characterization of pairwise dictatorial approbatory social welfare functions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 248(C).
    3. Alessandro Albano & José Luis García-Lapresta & Antonella Plaia & Mariangela Sciandra, 2023. "A family of distances for preference–approvals," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 323(1), pages 1-29, April.
    4. Yao Li & Ying He & Yucheng Dong, 2025. "Preference-sorting structures extending scores and ordered categories: an axiomatic distance approach in group decision making," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 353(3), pages 1019-1051, October.
    5. Guy Barokas & Yves Sprumont, 2022. "The broken Borda rule and other refinements of approval ranking," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 58(1), pages 187-199, January.
    6. Alessandro Albano & José Luis García-Lapresta & Antonella Plaia & Mariangela Sciandra, 2024. "Clustering alternatives in preference-approvals via novel pseudometrics," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 33(1), pages 61-87, March.

  7. Ali Ozkes & M. Remzi Sanver, 2021. "Anonymous, neutral, and resolute social choice revisited," Post-Print hal-03341695, HAL.

    Cited by:

    1. Lirong Xia, 2022. "Most Equitable Voting Rules," Papers 2205.14838, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2023.
    2. Hiroki Saitoh, 2022. "Characterization of tie-breaking plurality rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 59(1), pages 139-173, July.
    3. Onur Doğan & Ayça Ebru Giritligil, 2022. "Anonymous and neutral social choice: a unified framework for existence results, maximal domains and tie-breaking," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(3), pages 469-489, September.
    4. Kivinen, Steven, 2024. "Equitable, neutral, and efficient voting rules," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    5. Ali I. Ozkes & M. Remzi Sanver, 2024. "Axiomatization of plurality refinements," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 200(1), pages 285-292, July.

  8. Umut Keskin & M. Remzi Sanver & H. Berkay Tosunlu, 2021. "Recovering non-monotonicity problems of voting rules," Post-Print hal-03250759, HAL.

    Cited by:

    1. Umut Keskin & M Remzi Sanver & H Berkay Tosunlu, 2021. "Monotonicity Violations Under Plurality With A Runoff: The Case Of French Presidential Elections," Working Papers hal-03413280, HAL.

  9. Gilbert Laffond & Jean Lainé & M. Remzi Sanver, 2020. "Metrizable preferences over preferences," Post-Print hal-03271221, HAL.

    Cited by:

    1. Athanasoglou, Stergios & Bonkoungou, Somouaoga & Ehlers, Lars, 2025. "Strategy-proof preference aggregation and the anonymity-neutrality tradeoff," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 216-240.

  10. Matias Nunez & M. Remzi Sanver, 2020. "On the subgame perfect implementability of voting rules," Post-Print hal-03092402, HAL.

    Cited by:

    1. Salvador Barberà & Danilo Coelho, 2022. "Compromising on compromise rules," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 53(1), pages 95-112, March.
    2. Mehmet Barlo & Nuh Aygün Dalkıran, 2022. "Computational implementation," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(4), pages 605-633, December.
    3. Hayrullah Dindar & Jean Lainé, 2022. "Compromise in combinatorial vote," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 59(1), pages 175-206, July.

  11. M. Remzi Sanver & William Zwicker & Hervé Moulin & Jean-François Laslier, 2019. "The Future of Economic Design," Post-Print hal-02517300, HAL.

    Cited by:

    1. Yoshinori Nakagawa & Tatsuyoshi Saijo, 2020. "Can Individuals Caring Little about Future Generations Serve As Their Representatives?," Working Papers SDES-2020-9, Kochi University of Technology, School of Economics and Management, revised Jul 2020.
    2. Yoshinori Nakagawa & Tatsuyoshi Saijo, 2020. "Visual Narrative for Taking Future Generation’s Perspective," Working Papers SDES-2020-8, Kochi University of Technology, School of Economics and Management, revised Jul 2020.
    3. Haris Aziz & Bettina Klaus, 2017. "Random Matching under Priorities: Stability and No Envy Concepts," Cahiers de Recherches Economiques du Département d'économie 17.09bis, Université de Lausanne, Faculté des HEC, Département d’économie.
    4. Stéphane Airiau & Haris Aziz & Ioannis Caragiannis & Justin Kruger & Jérôme Lang & Dominik Peters, 2023. "Portioning Using Ordinal Preferences: Fairness and Efficiency," Post-Print hal-03843084, HAL.
    5. John Duffy & Lucie Lebeau & Daniela Puzzello, 2021. "Bargaining Under Liquidity Constraints: Nash vs. Kalai in the Laboratory," Working Papers 2113, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
    6. Chambers, Christopher P. & Moreno-Ternero, Juan D., 2021. "Bilateral redistribution," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    7. Jens Gudmundsson & Jens Leth Hougaard & Trine Tornøe Platz, 2020. "Decentralized Task Coordination," IFRO Working Paper 2020/11, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    8. Zhang Jingchao & Koji Kotani & Tatsuyoshi Saijo, 2021. "Are societies becoming proself? A topographical difference under fast urbanization in China," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(9), pages 12976-12993, September.
    9. Yoichi Kasajima & Manabu Toda, 2021. "Singles monotonicity and stability in one-to-one matching problems," Working Papers 2023-1, Waseda University, Faculty of Political Science and Economics.
    10. Keishiro HARA & Yoko KITAKAJI & Hiroaki SUGINO & Ritsuji YOSHIOKA & Hiroyuki TAKEDA & Yoichi HIZEN & Tatsuyoshi SAIJO, 2019. "Effects of Experiencing the Role of Imaginary Future Generations in Decision-Making - a Case Study of Participatory Deliberation in a Japanese Town -," Discussion papers 19104, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    11. Haris Aziz & Florian Brandl, 2021. "Efficient, Fair, and Incentive-Compatible Healthcare Rationing," Papers 2102.04384, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2021.
    12. Juan D. Moreno-Ternero & Juan Vidal-Puga, 2020. "Aggregator Operators for Dynamic Rationing," Working Papers 20.01, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics.
    13. Yoshinori Nakagawa & Tatsuyoshi Saijo, 2020. "Future Design as a Metacognitive Intervention for Presentism," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-15, September.
    14. Haake, Claus-Jochen & Trockel, Walter, 2021. "Socio-legal Systems and Implementation of the Nash Solution in Debreu-Hurwicz Equilibrium," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 647, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    15. Biung-Ghi Ju & Min Kim & Suyi Kim & Juan D. Moreno-Ternero, 2021. "Fair international protocols for the abatement of GHG emissions," Working Papers 21.01, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics.
    16. Mikhail Pakhnin, 2021. "Collective Choice with Heterogeneous Time Preferences," CESifo Working Paper Series 9141, CESifo.
    17. Shun Katsuki & Yoichi Hizen, 2020. "Does Voting Solve the Intergenerational Sustainability Dilemma?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-15, August.
    18. Haris Aziz & Florian Brandl, 2020. "The Vigilant Eating Rule: A General Approach for Probabilistic Economic Design with Constraints," Papers 2008.08991, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2021.
    19. Davide Grossi, 2021. "Lecture Notes on Voting Theory," Papers 2105.00216, arXiv.org.
    20. Takashi Hayashi & Michele Lombardi, 2021. "Social discount rate: spaces for agreement," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 9(2), pages 247-257, October.
    21. Jean Baccelli & Marcus Pivato, 2021. "Philippe Mongin (1950–2020)," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 90(1), pages 1-9, February.

  12. Jean-François Laslier & Hervé Moulin & M Remzi Sanver, 2019. "The Future of Economic Design: The Continuing Development of a Field as Envisioned by Its Researchers," Post-Print halshs-02489653, HAL.

    Cited by:

    1. Yen-Lien Kuo & Wen-Chin Wu & Daigee Shaw & Bin-Tzong Chie & Yu-Tzung Chang & Yi-Lun Chuang & Yen-Ling Liu & Chun-Ta Fan, 2026. "The impact of imaginary future generations on the preference for carbon tax schemes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(4), pages 1-21, April.
    2. Yoshinori Nakagawa & Tatsuyoshi Saijo, 2020. "Visual Narrative for Taking Future Generation’s Perspective," Working Papers SDES-2020-8, Kochi University of Technology, School of Economics and Management, revised Jul 2020.
    3. John Duffy & Lucie Lebeau & Daniela Puzzello, 2021. "Bargaining Under Liquidity Constraints: Nash vs. Kalai in the Laboratory," Working Papers 2113, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
    4. Zhang Jingchao & Koji Kotani & Tatsuyoshi Saijo, 2021. "Are societies becoming proself? A topographical difference under fast urbanization in China," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(9), pages 12976-12993, September.
    5. Juan D. Moreno-Ternero & Juan Vidal-Puga, 2020. "Aggregator Operators for Dynamic Rationing," Working Papers 20.01, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics.
    6. Shun Katsuki & Yoichi Hizen, 2020. "Does Voting Solve the Intergenerational Sustainability Dilemma?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-15, August.

  13. Vincent Merlin & Ipek Özkal Sanver & M. Remzi Sanver, 2019. "Compromise Rules Revisited," Post-Print halshs-02065282, HAL.

    Cited by:

    1. Matías Núñez & M. Remzi Sanver, 2021. "On the subgame perfect implementability of voting rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(2), pages 421-441, February.
    2. Eric Kamwa, 2023. "On two voting systems that combine approval and preferences: fallback voting and preference approval voting," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 196(1), pages 169-205, July.
    3. Samaneh Zahedi & Amir Hedayati Aghmashhadi & Christine Fürst, 2021. "Optimal Politics of Conflict over Physical-Industrial Development Using a Technique of Cooperative Game Theory in Iran," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-20, November.
    4. Diss, Mostapha & Mahajne, Muhammad, 2020. "Social acceptability of Condorcet committees," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 14-27.
    5. Hatzivelkos, Aleksandar, 2024. "Note on compromise axiom," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 38-47.
    6. Mostapha Diss & Clinton Gubong Gassi & Issofa Moyouwou, 2023. "Social acceptability and the majoritarian compromise rule," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 61(3), pages 489-510, October.
    7. Olivier Cailloux & Matías Núñez & M. Remzi Sanver, 2025. "Two principles for two-person social choice," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 65(1), pages 69-89, August.
    8. Olivier Cailloux & Beatrice Napolitano & M. Remzi Sanver, 2023. "Compromising as an equal loss principle," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 27(3), pages 547-560, September.

  14. M. Remzi Sanver & Martin Osborne & Sean Horan, 2019. "Positively responsive collective choice rules and majority rule: A generalization of May’s theorem to many alternatives," Post-Print hal-02517283, HAL.

    Cited by:

    1. Salvador Barberà & Dolors Berga & Bernardo Moreno & Antonio Nicolò, 2025. "Condorcet Consistency And Pairwise Justifiability Under Variable Agendas," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 66(1), pages 313-329, February.
    2. Bhattacharya, Mihir & Gravel, Nicolas, 2021. "Is the preference of the majority representative ?," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 87-94.
    3. Stéphane Gonzalez & Aymeric Lardon, 2021. "Axiomatic foundations of the core for games in effectiveness form," Post-Print hal-04797842, HAL.
    4. Josep Freixas & Dani Samaniego, 2024. "Some characterizations of resolute majority rules," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 336(3), pages 2111-2124, May.
    5. Kazuo Yamaguchi, 2025. "May’s theorem in a rectilinear spatial model," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 65(3), pages 701-719, November.
    6. Josep Freixas & Montserrat Pons, 2021. "An extension and an alternative characterization of May’s theorem," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 302(1), pages 137-150, July.
    7. John Duggan, 2019. "Weak rationalizability and Arrovian impossibility theorems for responsive social choice," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 179(1), pages 7-40, April.
    8. Salvatore Barbaro, 2024. "Electoral Methods and Political Polarization," Working Papers 2411, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    9. Stéphane Gonzalez & Aymeric Lardon, 2018. "Axiomatic Foundations of a Unifying Core," Working Papers halshs-01872098, HAL.
    10. Barbaro Salvatore, 2025. "Wie sollten wir unseren Bundestag wählen?," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 26(4), pages 472-480.
    11. Josep Freixas & Dani Samaniego, 2026. "On the enumeration of resolute majority rules," Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 1-28, March.
    12. Kirneva Margarita & N'u~nez Mat'ias, 2023. "Legitimacy of collective decisions: a mechanism design approach," Papers 2302.09548, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2023.
    13. Stergios Athanasoglou & Somouaoga Bonkoungou & Lars Ehlers, 2023. "Strategy-proof preference aggregation and the anonymity-neutrality tradeoff," Working Papers 519, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Apr 2025.
    14. Raschka, Robert, 2025. "A Single Relation Theory of Welfarist Social Evaluation," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    15. Athanasoglou, Stergios & Bonkoungou, Somouaoga & Ehlers, Lars, 2025. "Strategy-proof preference aggregation and the anonymity-neutrality tradeoff," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 216-240.

  15. M. Remzi Sanver, 2018. "Implementing Pareto Optimal and Individually Rational Outcomes by Veto," Post-Print hal-02517252, HAL.

    Cited by:

    1. Jean-François Laslier & Matias Nunez & M. Remzi Sanver, 2021. "A solution to the two-person implementation problem," Post-Print hal-03498370, HAL.

  16. Matias Nunez & M. Remzi Sanver, 2017. "Revisiting the connection between the no-show paradox and monotonicity," Post-Print hal-02517227, HAL.

    Cited by:

    1. Hannu Nurmi, 2020. "The Incidence of Some Voting Paradoxes Under Domain Restrictions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(6), pages 1107-1120, December.
    2. Dominique Lepelley & Hatem Smaoui, 2019. "Comparing Two Ways for Eliminating Candidates in Three-Alternative Elections Using Sequential Scoring Rules," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 787-804, August.
    3. D. Marc Kilgour & Jean-Charles Grégoire & Angèle M. Foley, 2020. "The prevalence and consequences of ballot truncation in ranked-choice elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 184(1), pages 197-218, July.
    4. Basile, Achille & Rao, Surekha & Bhaskara Rao, K.P.S., 2022. "Anonymous, non-manipulable binary social choice," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 138-149.
    5. Can, Burak & Ergin, Emre & Pourpouneh, Mohsen, 2017. "Condorcet versus participation criterion in social welfare rules," Research Memorandum 020, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    6. Abhinaba Lahiri & Anup Pramanik, 2020. "On strategy-proof social choice between two alternatives," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 54(4), pages 581-607, April.

  17. Bora Erdamar & M. Remzi Sanver & Shin Sato, 2017. "Evaluationwise strategy-proofness," Post-Print hal-02517255, HAL.

    Cited by:

    1. Gori, Michele, 2021. "Manipulation of social choice functions under incomplete information," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 350-369.
    2. Yukinori Iwata, 2023. "Strategic nomination and non-manipulable voting procedures," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 27(4), pages 867-891, December.

  18. Ali Ihsan Ozkes & M. Remzi Sanver, 2016. "Absolute Qualified Majoritarianism: How Does the Threshold Matter?," AMSE Working Papers 1643, Aix-Marseille School of Economics, France.

    Cited by:

    1. Susumu Cato & Stéphane Gonzalez & Eric Rémila & Philippe Solal, 2022. "Approval voting versus proportional threshold methods: so far and yet so near," Working Papers halshs-03858356, HAL.
    2. Cailloux, Olivier & Hervouin, Matthieu & Ozkes, Ali I. & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2024. "Classification aggregation without unanimity," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 6-9.

  19. Jean Lainé & Ali Ihsan Ozkes & Remzi Sanver, 2016. "Hyper-stable social welfare functions," Post-Print hal-01505809, HAL.

    Cited by:

    1. H'ector Hermida-Rivera, 2025. "Self-Equivalent Voting Rules," Papers 2506.15310, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2026.
    2. Gilbert Laffond & Jean Lainé & M. Remzi Sanver, 2020. "Metrizable preferences over preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 55(1), pages 177-191, June.
    3. Mihir Bhattacharya, 2025. "Contraction consistent aggregation on trees," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 99(3), pages 649-675, November.
    4. Kikuchi, Kazuya, 2016. "Comparing preference orders: Asymptotic independence," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 1-5.
    5. Mihir Bhattacharya, 2019. "Constitutionally consistent voting rules over single-peaked domains," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 52(2), pages 225-246, February.
    6. Stergios, Athanasoglou, 2017. "An investigation of weak-veto rules in preference aggregation," Working Papers 363, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised 18 Feb 2017.

  20. Bora Erdamar & José Luis Garcia-Lapresta & David Pérez-Roman & Remzi Sanver, 2012. "Measuring consensus in a preference-approval context," Working Papers hal-00681297, HAL.

    Cited by:

    1. Artur Amsharuk & Grażyna Łaska, 2023. "The Approach to Finding Locations for Wind Farms Using GIS and MCDA: Case Study Based on Podlaskie Voivodeship, Poland," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(20), pages 1-24, October.

  21. Shurojit Chatterji & Remzi Sanver & Arunava Sen, 2010. "On Domains That Admit Well-behaved Strategy-proof Social Choice Functions," Working Papers 07-2010, Singapore Management University, School of Economics.

    Cited by:

    1. Agustín Bonifacio & Jordi Massó & Pablo Neme, 2022. "Preference Restrictions for Simple and Strategy-Proof Rules: Local and Weakly Single-Peaked Domains," Working Papers 1324, Barcelona School of Economics.
    2. Puppe, Clemens, 2017. "The Single-Peaked Domain Revisited: A Simple Global Characterization," VfS Annual Conference 2017 (Vienna): Alternative Structures for Money and Banking 168068, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    3. Chatterji, Shurojit & Sen, Arunava & Zeng, Huaxia, 2016. "A characterization of single-peaked preferences via random social choice functions," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 11(2), May.
    4. Ernesto Savaglio & Stefano Vannucci, 2014. "Strategy-proofness and single-peackedness in bounded distributive lattices," Papers 1406.5120, arXiv.org.
    5. Chatterji, Shurojit & Zeng, Huaxia, 2019. "Random mechanism design on multidimensional domains," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 25-105.
    6. Bonifacio, Agustín G. & Massó, Jordi, 2020. "On strategy-proofness and semilattice single-peakedness," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 219-238.
    7. Barberà, Salvador & Berga, Dolors & Moreno, Bernardo, 2022. "Restricted environments and incentive compatibility in interdependent values models," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 1-28.
    8. Jordi Massó & Shurojit Chatterji, 2015. "On Strategy-proofness and the Salience of Single-peakedness," UFAE and IAE Working Papers 952.15, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Anàlisi Econòmica (UAB) and Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica (CSIC).
    9. Chatterji, Shurojit & Massó, Jordi & Serizawa, Shigehiro, 2025. "On strategy-proofness and the salience of single-peakedness in a private goods allotment problem," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 48-70.
    10. Achuthankutty, Gopakumar & Roy, Souvik, 2017. "On Top-connected Single-peaked and Partially Single-peaked Domains," MPRA Paper 78102, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Debasis Mishra & Anup Pramanik & Souvik Roy, 2013. "Implementation in multidimensional domains with ordinal restrictions," Discussion Papers 13-07, Indian Statistical Institute, Delhi.
    12. Moulin, Hervé, 2017. "One dimensional mechanism design," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(2), May.
    13. Reffgen, Alexander, 2015. "Strategy-proof social choice on multiple and multi-dimensional single-peaked domains," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 349-383.
    14. Mishra, Debasis, 2016. "Ordinal Bayesian incentive compatibility in restricted domains," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 925-954.
    15. Peng Liu & Huaxia Zeng, 2025. "Equity in obviously strategy-proof exchange," Papers 2504.05678, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2026.
    16. Yan Long, 2019. "Strategy-proof group selection under single-peaked preferences over group size," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 68(3), pages 579-608, October.
    17. Patrick Lederer, 2025. "Robust Voting Rules on the Interval Domain," Papers 2509.04874, arXiv.org.
    18. Shurojit Chatterji & Arunava Sen & Huaxia Zeng, 2012. "Random Dictatorship Domains," Working Papers 27-2012, Singapore Management University, School of Economics.
    19. Chatterji, Shurojit & Zeng, Huaxia, 2023. "A taxonomy of non-dictatorial unidimensional domains," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 228-269.
    20. Haeringer, Guillaume & Hałaburda, Hanna, 2016. "Monotone strategyproofness," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 68-77.
    21. Shurojit Chatterji & Huaxia Zeng, 2023. "Decomposability and Strategy-proofness in Multidimensional Models," Papers 2303.10889, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2023.
    22. Achuthankutty, Gopakumar & Roy, Souvik, 2017. "Strategy-proof Rules on Partially Single-peaked Domains," MPRA Paper 82267, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    23. Shurojit Chatterji & Souvik Roy & Soumyarup Sadhukhan & Arunava Sen & Huaxia Zeng, 2021. "Probabilistic Fixed Ballot Rules and Hybrid Domains," Papers 2105.10677, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2022.
    24. Salvador Barberà & Dolors Berga & Bernardo Moreno, 2019. "Arrow on domain conditions: a fruitful road to travel," Working Papers 1095, Barcelona School of Economics.
    25. Agustín Germán Bonifacio & Jordi Massó & Pablo Neme, 2021. "Preference restrictions for strategy-proof and simple rules: local and weakly single-peaked domains," Asociación Argentina de Economía Política: Working Papers 4441, Asociación Argentina de Economía Política.
    26. Shurojit Chatterji & Huaxia Zeng, 2022. "A Taxonomy of Non-dictatorial Unidimensional Domains," Papers 2201.00496, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2022.
    27. Felix Brand & Patrick Lederer & Sascha Tausch, 2023. "Strategyproof Social Decision Schemes on Super Condorcet Domains," Papers 2302.12140, arXiv.org.
    28. Roy, Souvik & Sadhukhan, Soumyarup, 2020. "On the structure of division rules," MPRA Paper 104402, University Library of Munich, Germany.

  22. Ceyhun Coban & Remzi Sanver, 2009. "Social Choice without the Pareto Principle under Weak Independence," Working Papers 201005, Murat Sertel Center for Advanced Economic Studies, Istanbul Bilgi University.

    Cited by:

    1. Wesley H. Holliday & Mikayla Kelley, 2020. "A note on Murakami’s theorems and incomplete social choice without the Pareto principle," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 55(2), pages 243-253, August.
    2. Susumu Cato, 2016. "Weak independence and the Pareto principle," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(2), pages 295-314, August.
    3. Cato, Susumu, 2015. "Weak independent decisiveness and the existence of a unique vetoer," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 59-61.

  23. Murat R. Sertel & Remzi Sanver, 2001. "Strong Equilibrium Outcomes of Voting Games are the Generalized Condorcet Winners," Working Papers 0107, Department of Economics, Bilkent University.

    Cited by:

    1. Elkind, Edith & Grandi, Umberto & Rossi, Francesca & Slinko, Arkadii, 2020. "Cognitive hierarchy and voting manipulation in k-approval voting," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 193-205.
    2. Diss, Mostapha & Dougherty, Keith & Heckelman, Jac C., 2023. "When ties are possible: Weak Condorcet winners and Arrovian rationality," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 128-136.
    3. Benoît R. Kloeckner, 2022. "Cycles in synchronous iterative voting: general robustness and examples in Approval Voting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 59(2), pages 423-466, August.
    4. Sinan Ertemel & Levent Kutlu & M. Remzi Sanver, 2015. "Voting games of resolute social choice correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(1), pages 187-201, June.
    5. Joaquín Pérez & Omar De la Cruz, 2014. "Implementation of Jefferson-d’Hondt rule in the formation of a parliamentary committee," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(1), pages 17-30, January.
    6. Barberà, Salvador & Coelho, Danilo, 2010. "On the rule of k names," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 44-61, September.
    7. Yamamura, Hirofumi, 2016. "Coalitional stability in the location problem with single-dipped preferences: An application of the minimax theorem," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 48-57.
    8. Salvador Barberà & Danilo Coelho, 2015. "Balancing the Power to Appoint Officers," Working Papers 696, Barcelona School of Economics.
    9. Vincent Merlin & Jörg Naeve, 2000. "Implementation of Social Choice Functions via Demanding Equilibria," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 191/2000, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany, revised 25 Sep 2001.
    10. Velez, Rodrigo A. & Thomson, William, 2012. "Let them cheat!," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 948-963.
    11. Yifan Lin & Shenyu Qin & Kangning Wang & Lirong Xia, 2026. "Winning in the Limit: Average-Case Committee Selection with Many Candidates," Papers 2602.04815, arXiv.org.

Articles

  1. Olivier Cailloux & Beatrice Napolitano & M. Remzi Sanver, 2023. "Compromising as an equal loss principle," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 27(3), pages 547-560, September.
    See citations under working paper version above.
  2. Umut Keskin & M. Remzi Sanver & H. Berkay Tosunlu, 2022. "Monotonicity violations under plurality with a runoff: the case of French presidential elections," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 59(2), pages 305-333, August.
    See citations under working paper version above.
  3. Matías Núñez & M. Remzi Sanver, 2021. "On the subgame perfect implementability of voting rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(2), pages 421-441, February.
    See citations under working paper version above.
  4. Ali I. Ozkes & M. Remzi Sanver, 2021. "Anonymous, neutral, and resolute social choice revisited," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 57(1), pages 97-113, July.
    See citations under working paper version above.
  5. Justin Kruger & M. Remzi Sanver, 2021. "An Arrovian impossibility in combining ranking and evaluation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 57(3), pages 535-555, October.
    See citations under working paper version above.
  6. Umut Keskin & M. Remzi Sanver & H. Berkay Tosunlu, 2021. "Recovering non-monotonicity problems of voting rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(1), pages 125-141, January.
    See citations under working paper version above.
  7. Laslier, Jean-François & Núñez, Matías & Remzi Sanver, M., 2021. "A solution to the two-person implementation problem," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    See citations under working paper version above.
  8. Gilbert Laffond & Jean Lainé & M. Remzi Sanver, 2020. "Metrizable preferences over preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 55(1), pages 177-191, June.
    See citations under working paper version above.
  9. Vincent Merlin & İpek Özkal Sanver & M. Remzi Sanver, 2019. "Compromise Rules Revisited," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 63-78, February.
    See citations under working paper version above.
  10. Sean Horan & Martin J. Osborne & M. Remzi Sanver, 2019. "Positively Responsive Collective Choice Rules And Majority Rule: A Generalization Of May'S Theorem To Many Alternatives," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 60(4), pages 1489-1504, November.
    See citations under working paper version above.
  11. M. Remzi Sanver, 2018. "Implementing Pareto Optimal and Individually Rational Outcomes by Veto," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 223-233, April.
    See citations under working paper version above.
  12. Núñez, Matías & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2017. "Revisiting the connection between the no-show paradox and monotonicity," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 9-17.
    See citations under working paper version above.
  13. Ozkes, Ali Ihsan & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2017. "Absolute qualified majoritarianism: How does the threshold matter?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 20-22.
    See citations under working paper version above.
  14. M. Remzi Sanver, 2017. "Nash implementing social choice rules with restricted ranges," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 21(1), pages 65-72, March.

    Cited by:

    1. Altun, Ozan Altuğ & Barlo, Mehmet & Dalkıran, Nuh Aygün, 2023. "Implementation with a sympathizer," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 36-49.
    2. Mehmet Barlo & Nuh Aygün Dalkıran, 2022. "Computational implementation," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(4), pages 605-633, December.

  15. Erdamar, Bora & Sanver, M. Remzi & Sato, Shin, 2017. "Evaluationwise strategy-proofness," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 227-238.
    See citations under working paper version above.
  16. Jean Lainé & Ali Ozkes & Remzi Sanver, 2016. "Hyper-stable social welfare functions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(1), pages 157-182, January.
    See citations under working paper version above.
  17. Sinan Ertemel & Levent Kutlu & M. Remzi Sanver, 2015. "Voting games of resolute social choice correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(1), pages 187-201, June.

    Cited by:

    1. Salvador Barberà & Danilo Coelho, 2015. "Balancing the Power to Appoint Officers," Working Papers 696, Barcelona School of Economics.

  18. Ceyhun Coban & M. Sanver, 2014. "Social choice without the Pareto principle under weak independence," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 43(4), pages 953-961, December.
    See citations under working paper version above.
  19. Chatterji, Shurojit & Sanver, Remzi & Sen, Arunava, 2013. "On domains that admit well-behaved strategy-proof social choice functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(3), pages 1050-1073.
    See citations under working paper version above.
  20. 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.

    Cited by:

    1. Salvador Barberà & Danilo Coelho, 2024. "Selecting Winners, Excluding Losers: Duality in Bilateral Multiwinner Compromise," Working Papers 1442, Barcelona School of Economics.
    2. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa, 2020. "Simulations in Models of Preference Aggregation," Post-Print hal-02424936, HAL.
    3. Pierre Bardier, 2025. "The probability of satisfying axioms: a non-binary perspective on economic design," Papers 2502.13850, arXiv.org.
    4. 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.
    5. Bednay, Dezsö & Moskalenko, Anna & Tasnádi, Attila, 2018. "Dictatorship versus manipulability," Working Papers 2072/351579, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.
    6. Yuliya A. Veselova, 2020. "Does Incomplete Information Reduce Manipulability?," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 523-548, June.
    7. 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.
    8. Mostapha Diss & Boris Tsvelikhovskiy, 2021. "Manipulable outcomes within the class of scoring voting rules," Post-Print hal-04419927, HAL.
    9. Gori, Michele, 2021. "Manipulation of social choice functions under incomplete information," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 350-369.
    10. Jansen, C. & Schollmeyer, G. & Augustin, T., 2018. "A probabilistic evaluation framework for preference aggregation reflecting group homogeneity," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 49-62.
    11. Daniel Karabekyan, 2016. "Strategic Behavior in Exhaustive Ballot Voting: What Can We Learn from the FIFA World Cup 2018 and 2022 Host Elections?," HSE Working papers WP BRP 130/EC/2016, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    12. 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.
    13. Yuliya A. Veselova, 2016. "Does Incomplete Information Reduce Manipulability?," HSE Working papers WP BRP 152/EC/2016, National Research University Higher School of Economics.

  21. M. Sanver & William Zwicker, 2012. "Monotonicity properties and their adaptation to irresolute social choice rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 39(2), pages 371-398, July.

    Cited by:

    1. Brandt, Felix & Lederer, Patrick, 2023. "Characterizing the top cycle via strategyproofness," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), May.
    2. Aziz, Haris & Brandl, Florian & Brandt, Felix, 2015. "Universal Pareto dominance and welfare for plausible utility functions," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 123-133.
    3. Uuganbaatar Ninjbat, 2015. "Impossibility theorems are modified and unified," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(4), pages 849-866, December.
    4. Edith Elkind & Piotr Faliszewski & Piotr Skowron & Arkadii Slinko, 2017. "Properties of multiwinner voting rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(3), pages 599-632, March.
    5. Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit, 2021. "Measuring Violations of Positive Involvement in Voting," Papers 2106.11502, arXiv.org.
    6. Aziz, Haris & Lederer, Patrick & Lu, Xinhang & Suzuki, Mashbat & Vollen, Jeremy, 2025. "Approximately fair and population consistent budget division via simple payment schemes," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 208-225.
    7. Onur Doğan & Ayça Ebru Giritligil, 2022. "Anonymous and neutral social choice: a unified framework for existence results, maximal domains and tie-breaking," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(3), pages 469-489, September.
    8. 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.
    9. Christian Basteck, 2022. "Characterising scoring rules by their solution in iteratively undominated strategies," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 74(1), pages 161-208, July.
    10. Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit, 2020. "Split Cycle: A New Condorcet Consistent Voting Method Independent of Clones and Immune to Spoilers," Papers 2004.02350, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2023.
    11. Conal Duddy, 2017. "Geometry of run-off elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 173(3), pages 267-288, December.
    12. Haris Aziz & Barton E. Lee, 2020. "The expanding approvals rule: improving proportional representation and monotonicity," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 54(1), pages 1-45, January.
    13. Conal Duddy, 2014. "Condorcet’s principle and the strong no-show paradoxes," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(2), pages 275-285, August.
    14. Haris Aziz & Patrick Lederer & Xinhang Lu & Mashbat Suzuki & Jeremy Vollen, 2024. "Approximately Fair and Population Consistent Budget Division via Simple Payment Schemes," Papers 2412.02435, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2025.
    15. Ali Ihsan Ozkes & Remzi Sanver, 2017. "Procedural versus Opportunity-Wise Equal Treatment of Alternatives: Neutrality Revisited," Working Papers halshs-01613138, HAL.
    16. Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit, 2023. "Split Cycle: a new Condorcet-consistent voting method independent of clones and immune to spoilers," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 197(1), pages 1-62, October.
    17. Aziz, Haris & Brandl, Florian & Brandt, Felix & Brill, Markus, 2018. "On the tradeoff between efficiency and strategyproofness," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 1-18.
    18. Felix Brandt & Patrick Lederer, 2021. "Characterizing the Top Cycle via Strategyproofness," Papers 2108.04622, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2023.
    19. Onur Doğan & Ayça Ebru Giritligil, 2015. "Anonymous and Neutral Social Choice:Existence Results on Resoluteness," Working Papers 201501, Murat Sertel Center for Advanced Economic Studies, Istanbul Bilgi University.

  22. Fuad Aleskerov & Daniel Karabekyan & M. Sanver & Vyacheslav Yakuba, 2011. "An individual manipulability of positional voting rules," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 2(4), pages 431-446, December.

    Cited by:

    1. Bednay, Dezsö & Moskalenko, Anna & Tasnádi, Attila, 2018. "Dictatorship versus manipulability," Working Papers 2072/351579, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.
    2. Yuliya A. Veselova, 2020. "Does Incomplete Information Reduce Manipulability?," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 523-548, June.
    3. Ivanov, A., 2022. "On the algorithms of exact estimations of manipulability of social choice rules for the case of 3 alternatives," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 57(5), pages 14-23.
    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. Krzysztof Kontek & Honorata Sosnowska, 2020. "Specific Tastes or Cliques of Jurors? How to Reduce the Level of Manipulation in Group Decisions?," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(6), pages 1057-1084, December.
    6. Daniel Karabekyan, 2016. "Strategic Behavior in Exhaustive Ballot Voting: What Can We Learn from the FIFA World Cup 2018 and 2022 Host Elections?," HSE Working papers WP BRP 130/EC/2016, National Research University Higher School of Economics.

  23. Sanver, M. Remzi & Selçuk, Özer, 2010. "A characterization of the Copeland solution," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 354-355, June.

    Cited by:

    1. Susumu Cato, 2015. "Conditions on social-preference cycles," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(1), pages 1-13, July.

  24. İpek Özkal-Sanver & M. Sanver, 2010. "A new monotonicity condition for tournament solutions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(3), pages 439-452, September.

    Cited by:

    1. Weibin Han & Adrian Deemen, 2019. "A refinement of the uncovered set in tournaments," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(1), pages 107-121, February.

  25. Murat Çengelci & M. Sanver, 2010. "Simple Collective Identity Functions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(4), pages 417-443, April.

    Cited by:

    1. Cho, Wonki Jo & Park, Chang Woo, 2018. "Fractional group identification," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 66-75.
    2. Cho, Wonki Jo & Ju, Biung-Ghi, 2020. "Group identification: An integrated approach," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 171-181.
    3. Dinko Dimitrov & Thierry Marchant & Debasis Mishra, 2012. "Separability and aggregation of equivalence relations," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 51(1), pages 191-212, September.
    4. Dinko Dimitrov & Clemens Puppe, 2009. "Non-bossy Social Classification," Working Papers 2009.101, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    5. José Carlos R. Alcantud & Annick Laruelle, 2020. "Independent collective identity functions as voting rules," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 89(1), pages 107-119, July.
    6. Biung-Ghi Ju, 2013. "On the characterization of liberalism by Samet and Schmeidler," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(2), pages 359-366, February.
    7. Yukinori Iwata, 2016. "The possibility of Arrovian social choice with the process of nomination," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 81(4), pages 535-552, November.
    8. Balazs Sziklai, 2015. "On how to identify experts in a community," KRTK-KTI WORKING PAPERS 1549, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    9. Alcantud, José Carlos R. & Laruelle, Annick, 2018. "Collective identity functions with status quo," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 159-166.
    10. Stefano Vannucci, 2007. "Virtuous Circles and Contested Identities: on Collective Identification Procedures with Independent Qualified Certification," Department of Economics University of Siena 501, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    11. Cho, Wonki Jo, 2018. "Fairness in group identification," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 35-40.
    12. Wonki Jo Cho & Alejandro Saporiti, 2015. "Incentives, Fairness, and Efficiency in Group Identification," Economics Discussion Paper Series 1501, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    13. Denis Bouyssou & M Remzi Sanver, 2022. "Simple but powerful models of stereotype formation ," Post-Print hal-03766376, HAL.

  26. Özyurt, Selçuk & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2009. "A general impossibility result on strategy-proof social choice hyperfunctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 880-892, July.

    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. Salvador Barberà & Danilo Coelho, 2024. "Selecting Winners, Excluding Losers: Duality in Bilateral Multiwinner Compromise," Working Papers 1442, Barcelona School of Economics.
    3. 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).
    4. Salvador Barberà, 2015. "Strategy-proof social choice," Working Papers 420, Barcelona School of Economics.
    5. Carmelo Rodríguez à lvarez, 2026. "Strategy-Proof Social Choice Correspondences for Conditional Expected Utility Maximizers," Documentos de Trabajo del ICAE 2026-02, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Instituto Complutense de Análisis Económico.
    6. 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.
    7. Fuad Aleskerov & Daniel Karabekyan & M. Sanver & Vyacheslav Yakuba, 2011. "An individual manipulability of positional voting rules," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 2(4), pages 431-446, December.
    8. Sato, Shin, 2013. "A sufficient condition for the equivalence of strategy-proofness and nonmanipulability by preferences adjacent to the sincere one," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(1), pages 259-278.
    9. Sanver, M. Remzi, 2007. "A characterization of superdictatorial domains for strategy-proof social choice functions," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 257-260, December.
    10. Jean-François Laslier & Matias Nunez & M Remzi Sanver, 2020. "A solution to the two-person implementation problem," PSE Working Papers halshs-02173504, HAL.
    11. Carmelo Rodríguez-à lvarez, 2017. "On single-peakedness and strategy-proofness: ties between adjacent alternatives," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 37(3), pages 1966-1974.
    12. M. Sanver & William Zwicker, 2012. "Monotonicity properties and their adaptation to irresolute social choice rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 39(2), pages 371-398, July.
    13. Mihir Bhattacharya & Ojasvi Khare, 2024. "Strategy-proof interval-social choice correspondences over extended single-peaked domains," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 53(3), pages 893-911, September.
    14. Shin Sato, 2014. "A fundamental structure of strategy-proof social choice correspondences with restricted preferences over alternatives," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(4), pages 831-851, April.
    15. Shurojit Chatterji & Arunava Sen, 2011. "Tops-only domains," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 46(2), pages 255-282, February.
    16. Kutlu, Levent, 2007. "Arrovian aggregation for preferences over sets," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 255-258, May.
    17. Bora Erdamar & M. Sanver, 2009. "Choosers as extension axioms," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 67(4), pages 375-384, October.

  27. 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.

    Cited by:

    1. Yuliya A. Veselova, 2020. "Does Incomplete Information Reduce Manipulability?," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 523-548, June.
    2. 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.
    3. Bednay, Dezső & Moskalenko, Anna & Tasnádi, Attila, 2019. "Dictatorship versus manipulability," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 72-76.
    4. Yuliya A. Veselova, 2016. "Does Incomplete Information Reduce Manipulability?," HSE Working papers WP BRP 152/EC/2016, National Research University Higher School of Economics.

  28. M. Sanver & William Zwicker, 2009. "One-way monotonicity as a form of strategy-proofness," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 38(4), pages 553-574, November.

    Cited by:

    1. Umut Keskin & M. Remzi Sanver & H. Berkay Tosunlu, 2021. "Recovering non-monotonicity problems of voting rules," Post-Print hal-03250759, HAL.
    2. Núñez, Matías & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2017. "Revisiting the connection between the no-show paradox and monotonicity," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 9-17.
    3. Brandl, Florian & Brandt, Felix & Hofbauer, Johannes, 2019. "Welfare maximization entices participation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 308-314.
    4. M. Sanver, 2009. "Strategy-proofness of the plurality rule over restricted domains," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 39(3), pages 461-471, June.
    5. Fasil Alemante & Donald E. Campbell & Jerry S. Kelly, 2016. "Characterizing the resolute part of monotonic social choice correspondences," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 62(4), pages 765-783, October.
    6. Haris Aziz & Barton E. Lee, 2020. "The expanding approvals rule: improving proportional representation and monotonicity," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 54(1), pages 1-45, January.
    7. Brandt, Felix & Geist, Christian & Peters, Dominik, 2017. "Optimal bounds for the no-show paradox via SAT solving," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 18-27.
    8. M. Sanver & William Zwicker, 2012. "Monotonicity properties and their adaptation to irresolute social choice rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 39(2), pages 371-398, July.
    9. Conal Duddy, 2014. "Condorcet’s principle and the strong no-show paradoxes," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(2), pages 275-285, August.
    10. Jacqueline Harding, 2023. "Proxy Selection in Transitive Proxy Voting," Papers 2307.02627, arXiv.org.
    11. Jacqueline Harding, 2022. "Proxy selection in transitive proxy voting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 58(1), pages 69-99, January.
    12. Cervone, Davide P. & Dai, Ronghua & Gnoutcheff, Daniel & Lanterman, Grant & Mackenzie, Andrew & Morse, Ari & Srivastava, Nikhil & Zwicker, William S., 2012. "Voting with rubber bands, weights, and strings," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 11-27.

  29. Can, Burak & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2009. "Stereotype formation as trait aggregation," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 226-237, September.

    Cited by:

    1. Denis Bouyssou & M Remzi Sanver, 2022. "Simple but powerful models of stereotype formation ," Post-Print hal-03766376, HAL.

  30. Burak Can & Bora Erdamar & M. Sanver, 2009. "Expected Utility Consistent Extensions of Preferences," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 123-144, August.

    Cited by:

    1. Núñez, Matías & Laslier, Jean-François, 2015. "Bargaining through Approval," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 63-73.
    2. Carmelo Rodríguez à lvarez, 2026. "Strategy-Proof Social Choice Correspondences for Conditional Expected Utility Maximizers," Documentos de Trabajo del ICAE 2026-02, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Instituto Complutense de Análisis Económico.
    3. Ulle Endriss, 2013. "Sincerity and manipulation under approval voting," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 74(3), pages 335-355, March.
    4. Bora Erdamar & M. Sanver, 2009. "Choosers as extension axioms," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 67(4), pages 375-384, October.

  31. M. Sanver & Özer Selçuk, 2009. "Sophisticated preference aggregation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 33(1), pages 73-86, June.

    Cited by:

    1. Franz Dietrich & Christian List, 2017. "Probabilistic opinion pooling generalized. Part one: general agendas," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(4), pages 747-786, April.
    2. Conal Duddy & Ashley Piggins, 2018. "On some oligarchy results when social preference is fuzzy," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(4), pages 717-735, December.

  32. M. Sanver, 2009. "Strategy-proofness of the plurality rule over restricted domains," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 39(3), pages 461-471, June.

    Cited by:

    1. Susumu Cato, 2011. "Pareto principles, positive responsiveness, and majority decisions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(4), pages 503-518, October.
    2. Sarvesh Bandhu & Bishwajyoti Mondal & Anup Pramanik, 2021. "Strategy-proofness of the unanimity with status-quo rule over restricted domains," Working Papers 2021-02, Shiv Nadar University, Department of Economics.
    3. Hiroki Saitoh, 2022. "Characterization of tie-breaking plurality rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 59(1), pages 139-173, July.
    4. Kentaro Hatsumi & Dolors Berga & Shigehiro Serizawa, 2014. "A maximal domain for strategy-proof and no-vetoer rules in the multi-object choice model," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 43(1), pages 153-168, February.
    5. Thérèse Embigne Killanga & Issofa Moyouwou & Boniface Mbih, 2025. "Plurality rule and Condorcet criterion over restricted domains," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 64(3), pages 633-663, May.
    6. Shashwat Khare & Ton Storcken, 2022. "Collective choice rules on restricted domains based on a priori information," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 59(3), pages 585-604, October.
    7. Kelly, Jerry S. & Qi, Shaofang, 2016. "Characterizing plurality rule on a fixed population," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 39-41.
    8. Sanver, M. Remzi, 2008. "Nash implementability of the plurality rule over restricted domains," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 99(2), pages 298-300, May.
    9. Fasil Alemante & Donald E. Campbell & Jerry S. Kelly, 2016. "Characterizing the resolute part of monotonic social choice correspondences," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 62(4), pages 765-783, October.
    10. Christian Basteck, 2022. "Characterising scoring rules by their solution in iteratively undominated strategies," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 74(1), pages 161-208, July.
    11. Clemens Puppe & Attila Tasnádi, 2008. "Nash implementable domains for the Borda count," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(3), pages 367-392, October.
    12. Dezső Bednay & Attila Tasnádi & Sonal Yadav, 2022. "On the manipulability of a class of social choice functions: plurality kth rules," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(1), pages 127-148, March.
    13. Pongou,Roland & Sidie,Ghislain Junior, 2024. "Voting when Rankings Matter : Truthful Equilibria, Efficiency, and Abstention," Policy Research Working Paper Series 10837, The World Bank.
    14. M. Sanver & William Zwicker, 2012. "Monotonicity properties and their adaptation to irresolute social choice rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 39(2), pages 371-398, July.
    15. Ollár, Mariann, 2010. "Monotonicity and robustness of majority rule," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 288-290, May.
    16. Mihir Bhattacharya & Anup Pramanik, 2026. "A simple characterization of single-peaked domains," Papers 2604.26563, arXiv.org.

  33. Bora Erdamar & M. Sanver, 2009. "Choosers as extension axioms," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 67(4), pages 375-384, October.

    Cited by:

    1. Brandt, Felix & Lederer, Patrick, 2023. "Characterizing the top cycle via strategyproofness," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), May.
    2. 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).
    3. Felix Brandt & Chris Dong & Dominik Peters, 2024. "Condorcet-Consistent Choice Among Three Candidates," Papers 2411.19857, arXiv.org.
    4. Sinan Ertemel & Levent Kutlu & M. Remzi Sanver, 2015. "Voting games of resolute social choice correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(1), pages 187-201, June.
    5. Brandt, Felix & Dong, Chris & Peters, Dominik, 2025. "Condorcet-consistent choice among three candidates," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 113-130.
    6. M. Sanver & William Zwicker, 2012. "Monotonicity properties and their adaptation to irresolute social choice rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 39(2), pages 371-398, July.
    7. Ulle Endriss, 2013. "Sincerity and manipulation under approval voting," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 74(3), pages 335-355, March.
    8. Felix Brandt & Patrick Lederer, 2021. "Characterizing the Top Cycle via Strategyproofness," Papers 2108.04622, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2023.

  34. M. Sanver, 2009. "Characterizations of majoritarianism: a unified approach," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 33(1), pages 159-171, June.

    Cited by:

    1. Susumu Cato, 2011. "Pareto principles, positive responsiveness, and majority decisions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(4), pages 503-518, October.
    2. Uuganbaatar Ninjbat, 2019. "Monotonicity and qualified majority rules," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 7(2), pages 209-220, December.
    3. Daniela Bubboloni & Michele Gori, 2014. "Anonymous and neutral majority rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 43(2), pages 377-401, August.
    4. Adrian Miroiu, 2018. "Single-profile axiomatizations of the plurality and the simple majority rules," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 38(1), pages 13-19.
    5. Ozkes, Ali Ihsan & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2017. "Absolute qualified majoritarianism: How does the threshold matter?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 20-22.
    6. Adrian Miroiu, 2021. "Majority Voting and Higher-Order Societies," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(5), pages 983-999, October.
    7. Bonifacio Llamazares, 2013. "On the structure of voting systems between two alternatives," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 17(3), pages 239-248, September.
    8. Nicolas Houy, 2007. "A new characterization of absolute qualified majority voting," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(4), pages 1-8.
    9. Kivinen, Steven, 2023. "On the manipulability of equitable voting rules," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 286-302.
    10. Gersbach, Hans, 2017. "Flexible Majority Rules in democracyville: A guided tour," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 37-43.

  35. Selçuk Özyurt & M. Sanver, 2008. "Strategy-proof resolute social choice correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 30(1), pages 89-101, January.

    Cited by:

    1. Salvador Barberà, 2015. "Strategy-proof social choice," Working Papers 420, Barcelona School of Economics.
    2. Sinan Ertemel & Levent Kutlu & M. Remzi Sanver, 2015. "Voting games of resolute social choice correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(1), pages 187-201, June.
    3. Emre Doğan & M. Sanver, 2008. "Arrovian impossibilities in aggregating preferences over non-resolute outcomes," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 30(3), pages 495-506, April.
    4. Dogan, Emre & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2007. "On the alternating use of "unanimity" and "surjectivity" in the Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 140-143, July.
    5. Shurojit Chatterji & Arunava Sen, 2009. "Tops-Only Domains," Macroeconomics Working Papers 22064, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
      • Shurojit Chatterji & Arunava Sen, 2009. "Tops-Only Domains," Working Papers 06-2009, Singapore Management University, School of Economics.
      • Shurojit Chatterji & Arunava Sen, 2011. "Tops-only domains," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 46(2), pages 255-282, February.
    6. Alexander Reffgen, 2011. "Generalizing the Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem: partial preferences, the degree of manipulation, and multi-valuedness," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 37(1), pages 39-59, June.
    7. Egor Ianovski & Mark C. Wilson, 2019. "Manipulability of consular election rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 52(2), pages 363-393, February.
    8. Satoshi Nakada & Toshiya Yoshimura, 2026. "Peak-Robust Voting Rules," Papers 2606.25798, arXiv.org.
    9. Özyurt, Selçuk & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2009. "A general impossibility result on strategy-proof social choice hyperfunctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 880-892, July.
    10. Andreas Darmann, 2019. "Manipulability in a group activity selection problem," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 52(3), pages 527-557, March.
    11. Bora Erdamar & M. Sanver, 2009. "Choosers as extension axioms," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 67(4), pages 375-384, October.

  36. Emre Doğan & M. Sanver, 2008. "Arrovian impossibilities in aggregating preferences over non-resolute outcomes," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 30(3), pages 495-506, April.

    Cited by:

    1. Bora Erdamar & M. Sanver, 2009. "Choosers as extension axioms," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 67(4), pages 375-384, October.

  37. Sanver, M. Remzi, 2008. "Nash implementability of the plurality rule over restricted domains," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 99(2), pages 298-300, May.

    Cited by:

    1. Mehmet Barlo & Nuh Aygün Dalkıran, 2022. "Computational implementation," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(4), pages 605-633, December.
    2. Ollár, Mariann, 2010. "Monotonicity and robustness of majority rule," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 288-290, May.

  38. Murat Çengelci & M. Sanver, 2007. "Is abstention an escape from Arrow’s theorem?," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 28(3), pages 439-442, April.

    Cited by:

    1. Jianxin Yi, 2021. "Nash implementation via mechanisms that allow for abstentions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 91(2), pages 279-288, September.

  39. Dogan, Emre & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2007. "On the alternating use of "unanimity" and "surjectivity" in the Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 140-143, July.

    Cited by:

    1. Anup Pramanik & Arunava Sen, 2016. "Pairwise partition graphs and strategy-proof social choice in the exogenous indifference class model," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(1), pages 1-24, June.
    2. Anup Pramanik, 2015. "Further results on dictatorial domains," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(2), pages 379-398, September.
    3. Sanver, M. Remzi, 2008. "Nash implementability of the plurality rule over restricted domains," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 99(2), pages 298-300, May.
    4. Kutlu, Levent, 2007. "Superdictatorial domains for monotonic social choice functions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 97(2), pages 151-154, November.

  40. Benoit, Jean Pierre & Ok, Efe A. & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2007. "On combining implementable social choice rules," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 20-30, July.

    Cited by:

    1. Remzi Sanver, M., 2006. "Nash implementation of the majority rule," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 369-372, June.
    2. Kutlu, Levent, 2008. "Intersection of Nash implementable social choice correspondences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 255-257, March.
    3. Doğan, Battal, 2016. "Nash-implementation of the no-envy solution on symmetric domains of economies," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 165-171.

  41. Ugur Ozdemir & M. Sanver, 2007. "Dictatorial domains in preference aggregation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 28(1), pages 61-76, January.

    Cited by:

    1. Ceyhun Coban & M. Sanver, 2014. "Social choice without the Pareto principle under weak independence," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 43(4), pages 953-961, December.
    2. Roy, Souvik & Storcken, Ton, 2019. "A characterization of possibility domains in strategic voting," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 46-55.
    3. Kruger, Justin & Remzi Sanver, M., 2018. "Which dictatorial domains are superdictatorial? A complete characterization for the Gibbard–Satterthwaite impossibility," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 32-34.
    4. Kutlu, Levent, 2007. "Superdictatorial domains for monotonic social choice functions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 97(2), pages 151-154, November.
    5. Sanver, M. Remzi, 2007. "A characterization of superdictatorial domains for strategy-proof social choice functions," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 257-260, December.
    6. Justin Kruger & M. Remzi Sanver, 2018. "Restricting the domain allows for weaker independence," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(3), pages 563-575, October.
    7. Susumu Cato, 2018. "Collective rationality and decisiveness coherence," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 50(2), pages 305-328, February.
    8. Yukinori Iwata, 2009. "Consequences, opportunities, and Arrovian impossibility theorems with consequentialist domains," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 32(3), pages 513-531, March.

  42. Sanver, M. Remzi, 2007. "A characterization of superdictatorial domains for strategy-proof social choice functions," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 257-260, December.

    Cited by:

    1. Kruger, Justin & Remzi Sanver, M., 2018. "Which dictatorial domains are superdictatorial? A complete characterization for the Gibbard–Satterthwaite impossibility," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 32-34.
    2. Achuthankutty, Gopakumar & Roy, Souvik, 2017. "Dictatorship on Top-circular Domains," MPRA Paper 81368, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Sato, Shin, 2013. "A sufficient condition for the equivalence of strategy-proofness and nonmanipulability by preferences adjacent to the sincere one," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(1), pages 259-278.
    4. Kutlu, Levent, 2007. "Superdictatorial domains for monotonic social choice functions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 97(2), pages 151-154, November.
    5. Geng, Shuai & Lin, Lijun, 2018. "The extensible evaluation framework of urban green house gas emission reduction responsibility: A case of Shandong province in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 171-184.

  43. Steven Brams & D. Kilgour & M. Sanver, 2007. "A minimax procedure for electing committees," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 132(3), pages 401-420, September.

    Cited by:

    1. Murat Çengelci & M. Sanver, 2010. "Simple Collective Identity Functions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(4), pages 417-443, April.
    2. Grandi, Umberto & Lang, Jérôme & Ozkes, Ali & Airiau, Stéphane, 2020. "Voting behavior in one-shot and iterative multiple referenda," SocArXiv y4m6r, Center for Open Science.
    3. Eklund, Patrik & Rusinowska, Agnieszka & De Swart, Harrie, 2007. "Consensus reaching in committees," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 178(1), pages 185-193, April.
    4. Huremović, Kenan & Ozkes, Ali I., 2022. "Polarization in networks: Identification–alienation framework," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    5. Jean-François Laslier & Karine van Der Straeten, 2016. "Strategic voting in multi-winner elections with approval balloting: a theory for large electorates," Post-Print halshs-01518277, HAL.
    6. Eyal Baharad & Jacob Goldberger & Moshe Koppel & Shmuel Nitzan, 2011. "Beyond Condorcet: Optimal Aggregation Rules Using Voting Records," CESifo Working Paper Series 3323, CESifo.
    7. Edith Elkind & Piotr Faliszewski & Piotr Skowron & Arkadii Slinko, 2017. "Properties of multiwinner voting rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(3), pages 599-632, March.
    8. D. Marc Kilgour, 2016. "Approval elections with a variable number of winners," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 81(2), pages 199-211, August.
    9. Andreas Darmann & Christian Klamler, 2014. "Knapsack cost sharing," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 18(3), pages 219-241, September.
    10. Brams, Steven J & Kilgour, D. Marc, 2010. "Satisfaction approval voting," MPRA Paper 22709, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Markus Brill & Jonas Israel & Evi Micha & Jannik Peters, 2025. "Individual representation in approval-based committee voting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 64(1), pages 69-96, February.
    12. Gilbert Laffond & Jean Lainé, 2012. "Searching for a Compromise in Multiple Referendum," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 551-569, July.
    13. Kamesh Munagala & Yiheng Shen & Kangning Wang & Zhiyi Wang, 2021. "Approximate Core for Committee Selection via Multilinear Extension and Market Clearing," Papers 2110.12499, arXiv.org.
    14. Gilbert Laffond & Jean Lainé, 2009. "Condorcet choice and the Ostrogorski paradox," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 32(2), pages 317-333, February.
    15. Haris Aziz & Markus Brill & Vincent Conitzer & Edith Elkind & Rupert Freeman & Toby Walsh, 2017. "Justified representation in approval-based committee voting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(2), pages 461-485, February.
    16. Chris Dong & Patrick Lederer, 2023. "Characterizations of Sequential Valuation Rules," Papers 2302.11890, arXiv.org.
    17. Jean-François Laslier & Karine van Der Straeten, 2015. "Strategic Voting under Committee Approval: A Theory," PSE Working Papers halshs-01168767, HAL.
    18. Hayrullah Dindar & Gilbert Laffond & Jean Lainé, 2021. "Referendum Paradox for Party-List Proportional Representation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 191-220, February.
    19. G. Laffond & J. Lainé, 2013. "Unanimity and the Anscombe’s paradox," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 21(3), pages 590-611, October.
    20. Steven J. Brams & D. Marc Kilgour & Richard F. Potthoff, 2019. "Multiwinner approval voting: an apportionment approach," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 178(1), pages 67-93, January.
    21. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Ðura-Georg Granić, 2012. "Two field experiments on Approval Voting in Germany," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 39(1), pages 171-205, June.
    22. C. Garcia-Martinez & F. R. McMorris & O. Ortega & R. C. Powers, 2017. "Axioms for Consensus Functions on the n‐Cube," Journal of Applied Mathematics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2017(1).
    23. Mostapha Diss & Ahmed Doghmi, 2016. "Multi-winner scoring election methods: Condorcet consistency and paradoxes," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 97-116, October.
    24. Aditya Aradhye & Hans Peters, 2024. "Group strategy-proof rules in multidimensional binary domains," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 63(1), pages 103-124, August.
    25. Clark Bowman & Jonathan Hodge & Ada Yu, 2014. "The potential of iterative voting to solve the separability problem in referendum elections," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(1), pages 111-124, June.
    26. Egor Ianovski, 2022. "Electing a committee with dominance constraints," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 318(2), pages 985-1000, November.
    27. Adam Graham-Squire & David McCune, 2023. "Paradoxical Oddities in Two Multiwinner Elections from Scotland," Papers 2305.20078, arXiv.org.
    28. Markus Brill & Jean-François Laslier & Piotr Skowron, 2018. "Multiwinner approval rules as apportionment methods," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 30(3), pages 358-382, July.
    29. Klamler, Christian & Pferschy, Ulrich & Ruzika, Stefan, 2012. "Committee selection under weight constraints," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 48-56.
    30. Duddy, Conal, 2014. "Electing a representative committee by approval ballot: An impossibility result," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 124(1), pages 14-16.
    31. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2020. "On some k-scoring rules for committee elections: agreement and Condorcet Principle," Post-Print hal-02147735, HAL.
    32. Christian Klamler & Daniel Eckert, 2008. "Antipodality in committee selection," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(1), pages 1-5.
    33. Tuğçe Çuhadaroğlu & Jean Lainé, 2012. "Pareto efficiency in multiple referendum," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 72(4), pages 525-536, April.
    34. Sanver, M. Remzi & Selçuk, Özer, 2010. "A characterization of the Copeland solution," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 354-355, June.
    35. Steven Brams & Michael Hansen & Michael Orrison, 2006. "Dead Heat: The 2006 Public Choice Society Election," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 128(3), pages 361-366, September.
    36. Clinton Gubong Gassi, 2024. "Weighted scoring rules for selecting a compatible committee," Working Papers 2024-04, CRESE.

  44. İpek Özkal-Sanver & M. Sanver, 2006. "Nash implementation via hyperfunctions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 26(3), pages 607-623, June.

    Cited by:

    1. Emre Doğan & M. Sanver, 2008. "Arrovian impossibilities in aggregating preferences over non-resolute outcomes," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 30(3), pages 495-506, April.
    2. M. Remzi Sanver, 2018. "Implementing Pareto Optimal and Individually Rational Outcomes by Veto," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 223-233, April.
    3. Jean-François Laslier & Matias Nunez & M Remzi Sanver, 2020. "A solution to the two-person implementation problem," Working Papers halshs-02173504, HAL.
    4. Yi, Jianxin, 2011. "Implementation via mechanisms with transfers," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 65-70, January.

  45. M. Sanver, 2006. "Nash implementing non-monotonic social choice rules by awards," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 28(2), pages 453-460, June.

    Cited by:

    1. Jean-François Laslier & Matias Nunez & M. Remzi Sanver, 2021. "A solution to the two-person implementation problem," Post-Print hal-03498370, HAL.
    2. Cabrales, Antonio & Serrano, Roberto, 2011. "Implementation in adaptive better-response dynamics: Towards a general theory of bounded rationality in mechanisms," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 360-374.
    3. Yi-Chun Chen & Takashi Kunimoto & Yifei Sun & Siyang Xiong, 2021. "Maskin Meets Abreu and Matsushima," Papers 2110.06551, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2022.
    4. M. Remzi Sanver, 2018. "Implementing Pareto Optimal and Individually Rational Outcomes by Veto," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 223-233, April.
    5. Sanver, M. Remzi, 2008. "Nash implementability of the plurality rule over restricted domains," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 99(2), pages 298-300, May.
    6. Benoît, Jean-Pierre & Ok, Efe A., 2008. "Nash implementation without no-veto power," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 51-67, September.
    7. Claudio Mezzetti & Ludovic Renou, 2012. "Implementation in Mixed Nash Equilibrium," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 1146, The University of Melbourne.
    8. Yi, Jianxin, 2011. "Implementation via mechanisms with transfers," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 65-70, January.
    9. Núñez, Matías & Pimienta, Carlos & Xefteris, Dimitrios, 2022. "On the implementation of the median," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    10. M. Remzi Sanver, 2017. "Nash implementing social choice rules with restricted ranges," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 21(1), pages 65-72, March.
    11. Artemov, Georgy, 2014. "An impossibility result for virtual implementation with status quo," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 122(3), pages 380-385.
    12. İpek Özkal-Sanver & M. Sanver, 2010. "A new monotonicity condition for tournament solutions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(3), pages 439-452, September.
    13. Artemov, Georgy, 2015. "Time and Nash implementation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 229-236.
    14. Massó, Jordi & Nicolò, Antonio, 2008. "Efficient and stable collective choices under gregarious preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 591-611, November.
    15. Michele Lombardi & Naoki Yoshihara, 2013. "A full characterization of nash implementation with strategy space reduction," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 54(1), pages 131-151, September.
    16. Jordi Massó & Antonio Nicolò, 2015. "Efficient and Stable Collective Choices under Crowding Preferences," Working Papers 148, Barcelona School of Economics.

  46. Asan, Goksel & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2006. "Maskin monotonic aggregation rules," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 179-183, May.

    Cited by:

    1. Matías Núñez & M. Remzi Sanver, 2021. "On the subgame perfect implementability of voting rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(2), pages 421-441, February.
    2. H'ector Hermida-Rivera, 2025. "A Note on Qualified Majority Voting Rules," Papers 2509.19823, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2025.
    3. Susumu Cato, 2011. "Pareto principles, positive responsiveness, and majority decisions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(4), pages 503-518, October.
    4. Uuganbaatar Ninjbat, 2019. "Monotonicity and qualified majority rules," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 7(2), pages 209-220, December.
    5. Matías Núñez & Giacomo Valletta, 2015. "The informational basis of scoring rules," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 19(4), pages 279-297, December.
    6. Daniela Bubboloni & Michele Gori, 2014. "Anonymous and neutral majority rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 43(2), pages 377-401, August.
    7. Susumu Cato & Stéphane Gonzalez & Eric Rémila & Philippe Solal, 2022. "Approval voting versus proportional threshold methods: so far and yet so near," Working Papers halshs-03858356, HAL.
    8. Can, Burak & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2009. "Stereotype formation as trait aggregation," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 226-237, September.
    9. Ozkes, Ali Ihsan & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2017. "Absolute qualified majoritarianism: How does the threshold matter?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 20-22.
    10. Powers, R.C., 2010. "Maskin monotonic aggregation rules and partial anonymity," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 12-14, January.
    11. Hoots, Lucas & Powers, Robert C., 2015. "Anonymous and positively responsive aggregation rules," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 9-14.
    12. Nuñez, M. & Valletta, G., 2012. "The information simplicity of scoring rules," Research Memorandum 011, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    13. Perry, Jonathan & Powers, Robert C., 2010. "Anonymity, monotonicity, and quota pair systems," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 57-60, July.
    14. Mateusz Krukowski, 2023. "Majority rule as a unique voting method in elections with multiple candidates," Papers 2310.12983, arXiv.org.
    15. M. Sanver, 2009. "Characterizations of majoritarianism: a unified approach," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 33(1), pages 159-171, June.
    16. Bonifacio Llamazares, 2013. "On the structure of voting systems between two alternatives," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 17(3), pages 239-248, September.
    17. Campbell, Donald E. & Kelly, Jerry S., 2010. "Strategy-proofness and weighted voting," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 15-23, July.
    18. Perry, Jonathan & Powers, Robert C., 2008. "Aggregation rules that satisfy anonymity and neutrality," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 100(1), pages 108-110, July.
    19. Nicolas Houy, 2007. "A new characterization of absolute qualified majority voting," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(4), pages 1-8.
    20. Houy, Nicolas, 2007. "A characterization for qualified majority voting rules," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 17-24, July.
    21. Kivinen, Steven, 2023. "On the manipulability of equitable voting rules," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 286-302.
    22. Susumu Cato & Daisuke Hirata, 2010. "Collective choice rules and collective rationality: a unified method of characterizations," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 34(4), pages 611-630, April.

  47. Remzi Sanver, M., 2006. "Nash implementation of the majority rule," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 369-372, June.

    Cited by:

    1. M. Sanver, 2009. "Characterizations of majoritarianism: a unified approach," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 33(1), pages 159-171, June.
    2. Bonifacio Llamazares, 2013. "On the structure of voting systems between two alternatives," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 17(3), pages 239-248, September.
    3. Campbell, Donald E. & Kelly, Jerry S., 2010. "Strategy-proofness and weighted voting," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 15-23, July.
    4. Bandhu, Sarvesh & Lahiri, Abhinaba & Pramanik, Anup, 2020. "A characterization of status quo rules in the binary social choice model," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).

  48. İpek Özkal-Sanver & M. Sanver, 2006. "Ensuring Pareto Optimality by Referendum Voting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 27(1), pages 211-219, August.

    Cited by:

    1. David S. Ahn & Santiago Oliveros, 2010. "Combinatorial Voting," Levine's Working Paper Archive 661465000000000263, David K. Levine.
    2. Grandi, Umberto & Lang, Jérôme & Ozkes, Ali & Airiau, Stéphane, 2020. "Voting behavior in one-shot and iterative multiple referenda," SocArXiv y4m6r, Center for Open Science.
    3. Gilbert Laffond & Jean Lainé, 2014. "Triple-consistent social choice and the majority rule," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 22(2), pages 784-799, July.
    4. Jean Lainé & Ali Ihsan Ozkes & Remzi Sanver, 2014. "Hyper-Stable Social Welfare Functions," Working Papers hal-00871312, HAL.
    5. Gilbert Laffond & Jean Lainé, 2012. "Searching for a Compromise in Multiple Referendum," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 551-569, July.
    6. Hayrullah Dindar & Gilbert Laffond & Jean Lainé, 2021. "Referendum Paradox for Party-List Proportional Representation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 191-220, February.
    7. Hayrullah Dindar & Jean Lainé, 2022. "Compromise in combinatorial vote," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 59(1), pages 175-206, July.
    8. Lang, Jrme & Xia, Lirong, 2009. "Sequential composition of voting rules in multi-issue domains," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 304-324, May.
    9. Benoît, Jean-Pierre & Kornhauser, Lewis A., 2010. "Only a dictatorship is efficient," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 261-270, November.
    10. Fatma Aslan & Hayrullah Dindar & Jean Lainé, 2022. "When are committees of Condorcet winners Condorcet winning committees?," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(3), pages 417-446, September.
    11. Tuğçe Çuhadaroğlu & Jean Lainé, 2012. "Pareto efficiency in multiple referendum," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 72(4), pages 525-536, April.

  49. M. Sanver, 2005. "Equilibrium allocations of endowment-pretension games in public good economies," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 9(4), pages 307-316, December.

    Cited by:

    1. Sinan Ertemel & Levent Kutlu & M. Remzi Sanver, 2015. "Voting games of resolute social choice correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(1), pages 187-201, June.
    2. Ozkal-Sanver, Ipek & Remzi Sanver, M., 2005. "Implementing matching rules by type pretension mechanisms," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 50(3), pages 304-317, November.

  50. Orhan Erdem & M. Sanver, 2005. "Minimal monotonic extensions of scoring rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 25(1), pages 31-42, October.

    Cited by:

    1. Matías Núñez & M. Remzi Sanver, 2021. "On the subgame perfect implementability of voting rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(2), pages 421-441, February.
    2. 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.
    3. Battal Doğan & Semih Koray, 2015. "Maskin-monotonic scoring rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 44(2), pages 423-432, February.
    4. Sanver, M. Remzi, 2008. "Nash implementability of the plurality rule over restricted domains," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 99(2), pages 298-300, May.
    5. İpek Özkal-Sanver, 2013. "Minimal conversely consistent extension of the men-optimal solution," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(1), pages 89-99, January.
    6. M. Sanver & William Zwicker, 2009. "One-way monotonicity as a form of strategy-proofness," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 38(4), pages 553-574, November.
    7. Remzi Sanver, M., 2006. "Nash implementation of the majority rule," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 369-372, June.
    8. Clemens Puppe & Attila Tasnádi, 2008. "Nash implementable domains for the Borda count," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(3), pages 367-392, October.
    9. M. Remzi Sanver, 2017. "Nash implementing social choice rules with restricted ranges," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 21(1), pages 65-72, March.
    10. İpek Özkal-Sanver & M. Sanver, 2010. "A new monotonicity condition for tournament solutions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(3), pages 439-452, September.

  51. Murat R. Sertel & M. Remzi Sanver, 2004. "Strong equilibrium outcomes of voting games ¶are the generalized Condorcet winners," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 22(2), pages 331-347, April.
    See citations under working paper version above.
  52. İpek Özkal-Sanver & M. Remzi Sanver, 2004. "Efficiency in the Degree of Compromise: A New Axiom for Social Choice," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 375-380, July.

    Cited by:

    1. Eric Kamwa, 2023. "On two voting systems that combine approval and preferences: fallback voting and preference approval voting," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 196(1), pages 169-205, July.
    2. Gilbert Laffond & Jean Lainé, 2012. "Searching for a Compromise in Multiple Referendum," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 551-569, July.
    3. Olivier Cailloux & Matías Núñez & M. Remzi Sanver, 2024. "Two principles for two-person social choice," Post-Print hal-05511713, HAL.
    4. Hatzivelkos, Aleksandar, 2024. "Note on compromise axiom," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 38-47.
    5. Vincent Merlin & İpek Özkal Sanver & M. Remzi Sanver, 2019. "Compromise Rules Revisited," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 63-78, February.
    6. Olivier Cailloux & Beatrice Napolitano & M. Remzi Sanver, 2023. "Compromising as an equal loss principle," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 27(3), pages 547-560, September.

  53. Barış Kaymak & M. Remzi Sanver, 2003. "Sets of alternatives as Condorcet winners," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 20(3), pages 477-494, June.

    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. Salvador Barberà & Danilo Coelho, 2024. "Selecting Winners, Excluding Losers: Duality in Bilateral Multiwinner Compromise," Working Papers 1442, Barcelona School of Economics.
    3. Edith Elkind & Piotr Faliszewski & Piotr Skowron & Arkadii Slinko, 2017. "Properties of multiwinner voting rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(3), pages 599-632, March.
    4. Kamwa, Eric, 2017. "On stable rules for selecting committees," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 36-44.
    5. Burak Can & Bora Erdamar & M. Sanver, 2009. "Expected Utility Consistent Extensions of Preferences," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 123-144, August.
    6. Sinan Ertemel & Levent Kutlu & M. Remzi Sanver, 2015. "Voting games of resolute social choice correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(1), pages 187-201, June.
    7. İpek Özkal-Sanver & M. Sanver, 2006. "Nash implementation via hyperfunctions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 26(3), pages 607-623, June.
    8. Darmann, Andreas, 2018. "A social choice approach to ordinal group activity selection," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 57-66.
    9. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2018. "The Chamberlin-Courant Rule and the k-Scoring Rules: Agreement and Condorcet Committee Consistency," Working Papers hal-01757761, HAL.
    10. Barberà, Salvador & Coelho, Danilo, 2010. "On the rule of k names," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 44-61, September.
    11. Joseph, Rémy-Robert, 2010. "Making choices with a binary relation: Relative choice axioms and transitive closures," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(2), pages 865-877, December.
    12. Darmann, Andreas, 2013. "How hard is it to tell which is a Condorcet committee?," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 282-292.
    13. Diss, Mostapha & Mahajne, Muhammad, 2020. "Social acceptability of Condorcet committees," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 14-27.
    14. Mostapha Diss & Ahmed Doghmi, 2016. "Multi-winner scoring election methods: Condorcet consistency and paradoxes," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 97-116, October.
    15. Salvador Barberà & Danilo Coelho, 2015. "Balancing the Power to Appoint Officers," Working Papers 696, Barcelona School of Economics.
    16. Salvador Barberà & Danilo Coelho, 2008. "How to choose a non-controversial list with k names," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(1), pages 79-96, June.
    17. Hayrullah Dindar & Jean Lainé, 2022. "Compromise in combinatorial vote," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 59(1), pages 175-206, July.
    18. Edith Elkind & Jérôme Lang & Abdallah Saffidine, 2015. "Condorcet winning sets," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 44(3), pages 493-517, March.
    19. Eric Kamwa, 2022. "The Condorcet Loser Criterion in Committee Selection," Working Papers hal-03880064, HAL.
    20. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2020. "On some k-scoring rules for committee elections: agreement and Condorcet Principle," Post-Print hal-02147735, HAL.
    21. Fatma Aslan & Hayrullah Dindar & Jean Lainé, 2022. "When are committees of Condorcet winners Condorcet winning committees?," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(3), pages 417-446, September.
    22. Özyurt, Selçuk & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2009. "A general impossibility result on strategy-proof social choice hyperfunctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 880-892, July.
    23. Andreas Darmann, 2016. "It is difficult to tell if there is a Condorcet spanning tree," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 84(1), pages 93-104, August.
    24. Eric Kamwa & Vincent Merlin, 2018. "Coincidence of Condorcet committees," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 50(1), pages 171-189, January.
    25. Bora Erdamar & M. Sanver, 2009. "Choosers as extension axioms," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 67(4), pages 375-384, October.

  54. Asan, Goksel & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2002. "Another characterization of the majority rule," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 409-413, May.

    Cited by:

    1. Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit, 2020. "Axioms for Defeat in Democratic Elections," Papers 2008.08451, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2023.
    2. Susumu Cato, 2011. "Pareto principles, positive responsiveness, and majority decisions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(4), pages 503-518, October.
    3. Woeginger, Gerhard J., 2005. "More on the majority rule: Profiles, societies, and responsiveness," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 7-11, July.
    4. Matías Núñez & Giacomo Valletta, 2015. "The informational basis of scoring rules," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 19(4), pages 279-297, December.
    5. Quesada, Antonio, 2009. "Parallel axiomatizations of majority and unanimity," MPRA Paper 19401, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. İpek Özkal-Sanver & M. Sanver, 2006. "Ensuring Pareto Optimality by Referendum Voting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 27(1), pages 211-219, August.
    7. José Carlos R. Alcantud, 2020. "Simple Majorities with Voice but No Vote," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(5), pages 803-822, October.
    8. Daniela Bubboloni & Michele Gori, 2014. "Anonymous and neutral majority rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 43(2), pages 377-401, August.
    9. Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit, 2021. "Axioms for defeat in democratic elections," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 33(4), pages 475-524, October.
    10. Asan, Goksel & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2006. "Maskin monotonic aggregation rules," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 179-183, May.
    11. Marchant, Thierry, 2007. "An axiomatic characterization of different majority concepts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 179(1), pages 160-173, May.
    12. Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit, 2026. "An extension of May’s Theorem to three alternatives: axiomatizing Minimax voting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 66(2), pages 395-422, March.
    13. Alcantud, José Carlos R., 2019. "Yet another characterization of the majority rule," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 52-55.
    14. Emre Doğan & M. Sanver, 2008. "Arrovian impossibilities in aggregating preferences over non-resolute outcomes," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 30(3), pages 495-506, April.
    15. Quesada, Antonio, 2009. "Decision by majority and the right to vote," MPRA Paper 19400, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Josep Freixas & Dani Samaniego, 2024. "Some characterizations of resolute majority rules," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 336(3), pages 2111-2124, May.
    17. Quesada, Antonio, 2010. "Monotonicity + efficiency + continuity = majority," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 149-153, September.
    18. José Luis Garcí a-Lapresta & Bonifacio Llamazares, 2010. "Preference Intensities and Majority Decisions Based on Difference of Support Between Alternatives," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 19(6), pages 527-542, November.
    19. Ozkes, Ali Ihsan & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2017. "Absolute qualified majoritarianism: How does the threshold matter?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 20-22.
    20. McMorris, F.R. & Powers, R.C., 2013. "Majority decision on median semilattices," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 48-51.
    21. Remzi Sanver, M., 2006. "Nash implementation of the majority rule," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 369-372, June.
    22. Hoots, Lucas & Powers, Robert C., 2015. "Anonymous and positively responsive aggregation rules," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 9-14.
    23. Sanne Zwart, 2010. "Ensuring a representative referendum outcome: the daunting task of setting the quorum right," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 34(4), pages 643-677, April.
    24. Nuñez, M. & Valletta, G., 2012. "The information simplicity of scoring rules," Research Memorandum 011, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    25. Adrian Miroiu, 2021. "Majority Voting and Higher-Order Societies," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(5), pages 983-999, October.
    26. Quesada, Antonio, 2009. "A short step between democracy and dictatorship," MPRA Paper 19455, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    27. Mateusz Krukowski, 2023. "Majority rule as a unique voting method in elections with multiple candidates," Papers 2310.12983, arXiv.org.
    28. M. Sanver, 2009. "Characterizations of majoritarianism: a unified approach," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 33(1), pages 159-171, June.
    29. Bonifacio Llamazares, 2013. "On the structure of voting systems between two alternatives," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 17(3), pages 239-248, September.
    30. Miroiu, Adrian, 2004. "Characterizing majority rule: from profiles to societies," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 85(3), pages 359-363, December.
    31. Gersbach, Hans & Tejada, Oriol, 2020. "Semi-flexible Majority Rules for Public Good Provision," CEPR Discussion Papers 15099, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    32. Yi, Jianxin, 2005. "A complete characterization of majority rules," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 109-112, April.
    33. Josep Freixas & Montserrat Pons, 2021. "An extension and an alternative characterization of May’s theorem," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 302(1), pages 137-150, July.
    34. McMorris, F.R. & Mulder, Henry Martyn & Novick, Beth & Powers, Robert C., 2021. "Majority rule for profiles of arbitrary length, with an emphasis on the consistency axiom," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 164-174.
    35. Llamazares, Bonifacio, 2006. "The forgotten decision rules: Majority rules based on difference of votes," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 311-326, May.
    36. Josep Freixas & Dani Samaniego, 2026. "On the enumeration of resolute majority rules," Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 1-28, March.
    37. Antonio Quesada, 2013. "The majority rule with a chairman," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(3), pages 679-691, March.
    38. Gersbach, Hans, 2017. "Flexible Majority Rules in democracyville: A guided tour," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 37-43.
    39. J. Woeginger, Gerhard, 2003. "A new characterization of the majority rule," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 89-94, October.
    40. Campbell, Donald E. & Kelly, Jerry S., 2011. "Majority selection of one alternative from a binary agenda," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 110(3), pages 272-273, March.
    41. F. McMorris & R. Powers, 2008. "The majority decision function for trees with 3 leaves," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 163(1), pages 169-175, October.
    42. Bandhu, Sarvesh & Lahiri, Abhinaba & Pramanik, Anup, 2020. "A characterization of status quo rules in the binary social choice model," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    43. Adrian Miroiu, 2013. "Responsiveness axioms and the majority rule," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 33(1), pages 740-746.
    44. Antonio Quesada, 2013. "The Majority Rule with Arbitrators," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 321-330, March.
    45. Campbell, Donald E. & Kelly, Jerry S., 2013. "Anonymity, monotonicity, and limited neutrality: Selecting a single alternative from a binary agenda," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 10-12.
    46. Xu, Yongsheng & Zhong, Zhen, 2010. "Single profile of preferences with variable societies: A characterization of simple majority rule," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 119-121, May.
    47. Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit, 2023. "An extension of May's Theorem to three alternatives: axiomatizing Minimax voting," Papers 2312.14256, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2025.

  55. M. Remzi Sanver, 2002. "An Allocation Rule with Wealth‐Regressive Tax Rates," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 4(1), pages 63-69, January.

    Cited by:

    1. Sinan Ertemel & Levent Kutlu & M. Remzi Sanver, 2015. "Voting games of resolute social choice correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(1), pages 187-201, June.

  56. Sanver, M. Remzi, 2002. "Scoring rules cannot respect majority in choice and elimination simultaneously," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 151-155, March.

    Cited by:

    1. Aleksei Y. Kondratev & Egor Ianovski & Alexander S. Nesterov, 2024. "How Should We Score Athletes and Candidates: Geometric Scoring Rules," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 72(6), pages 2507-2525, November.
    2. Woeginger, Gerhard J., 2003. "A note on scoring rules that respect majority in choice and elimination," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 347-354, December.
    3. Brandl, Florian & Peters, Dominik, 2022. "Approval voting under dichotomous preferences: A catalogue of characterizations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    4. 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.
    5. Jac C. Heckelman, 2023. "Negative voting social welfare functions: a characterization," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 27(1), pages 125-132, February.

  57. Sertel, Murat R. & Sanver, M. Remzi, 1999. "Equilibrium outcomes of Lindahl-endowment pretension games1," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 149-162, June.

    Cited by:

    1. Nigar Hashimzade & Gareth D. Myles, 2009. "Announcement or Contribution? The Relative Efficiency of Manipulated Lindahl Mechanisms," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 11(4), pages 565-598, August.
    2. Sinan Ertemel & Levent Kutlu & M. Remzi Sanver, 2015. "Voting games of resolute social choice correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(1), pages 187-201, June.
    3. Corchón, Luis C., 2008. "The theory of implementation : what did we learn?," UC3M Working papers. Economics we081207, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía.
    4. Murat R. Sertel & M. Remzi Sanver, 2004. "Strong equilibrium outcomes of voting games ¶are the generalized Condorcet winners," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 22(2), pages 331-347, April.
    5. Thomson, William, 2024. "On the manipulability of allocation rules through endowment augmentation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 91-104.

Chapters

  1. İpek Özkal-Sanver & Pelin Pasin & M. Remzi Sanver, 2015. "Minimal Maskin Monotonic Extensions of Tournament Solutions," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Constanze Binder & Giulio Codognato & Miriam Teschl & Yongsheng Xu (ed.), Individual and Collective Choice and Social Welfare, edition 127, pages 127-141, Springer.

    Cited by:

    1. M. Remzi Sanver, 2017. "Nash implementing social choice rules with restricted ranges," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 21(1), pages 65-72, March.

  2. Jean-François Laslier & M. Remzi Sanver, 2010. "Introduction to the Handbook on Approval Voting," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Jean-François Laslier & M. Remzi Sanver (ed.), Handbook on Approval Voting, chapter 0, pages 1-12, Springer.

    Cited by:

    1. Justin Kruger & M. Remzi Sanver, 2021. "An Arrovian impossibility in combining ranking and evaluation," Post-Print hal-03347632, HAL.
    2. Antoinette Baujard & Frédéric Gavrel & Herrade Igersheim & Jean-François Laslier & Isabelle Lebon, 2014. "Who's Favored by Evaluative Voting? An Experiment Conducted During the 2012 French Presidential Election," Post-Print hal-00803024, HAL.
    3. Tanguiane, Andranick S., 2025. "Analysis of the 2025 Bundestag elections. Part 3 of 4: The third vote perspective Bundestag," Working Paper Series in Economics 169, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    4. Tanguiane, Andranick S., 2022. "Analysis of the 2021 Bundestag elections. 4/4. The third vote application," Working Paper Series in Economics 154, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    5. Aziz, Haris & Lam, Alexander & Lee, Barton E. & Walsh, Toby, 2025. "Proportionality-based fairness and strategyproofness in the facility location problem," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    6. Isabelle Lebon & Antoinette Baujard & Frédéric Gavrel & Herrade Igersheim & Jean-François Laslier, 2017. "Ce que le vote par approbation révèle des préférences des électeurs français," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) halshs-01420369, HAL.
    7. Pietro Battiston & Marco Magnani & Dimitri Paolini & Luca Rossi, 2025. "Country Music: Positional Voting and Strategic Behavior," Discussion Papers 2025/322, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    8. Andranik Tangian, 2021. "MCDM Application of the Third Vote," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 775-787, August.
    9. Hans Gersbach, 2024. "Forms of new democracy," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 62(4), pages 799-837, June.
    10. J.C.R. Alcantud & R. de Andrés Calle & J.M. Cascón, 2013. "Consensus and the Act of Voting," Studies in Microeconomics, , vol. 1(1), pages 1-22, June.
    11. Huang, River, 2026. "Simple Group Choice: A minimal-information multi-criteria group decision aiding approach," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 16(C).
    12. Durand, François & Macé, Antonin & Núñez, Matías, 2024. "Voter coordination in elections: A case for approval voting," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 1-34.
    13. Kölle, Felix, 2022. "Governance and competition," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    14. Hans Gersbach, 2022. "New Forms of Democracy," CESifo Working Paper Series 10134, CESifo.

  3. Jean-François Laslier & M. Remzi Sanver, 2010. "The Basic Approval Voting Game," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Jean-François Laslier & M. Remzi Sanver (ed.), Handbook on Approval Voting, chapter 0, pages 153-163, Springer.

    Cited by:

    1. Sebastien Courtin & Matias Nunez, 2013. "A Map of Approval Voting Equilibria Outcomes," Working Papers hal-00914887, HAL.
    2. Núñez, Matías & Laslier, Jean-François, 2015. "Bargaining through Approval," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 63-73.
    3. François Durand & Antonin Macé & Matias Nunez, 2019. "Analysis of Approval Voting in Poisson Games," PSE Working Papers halshs-02049865, HAL.
    4. Matías Núñez & Jean Laslier, 2014. "Preference intensity representation: strategic overstating in large elections," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(2), pages 313-340, February.
    5. Matías Núñez, 2014. "The strategic sincerity of Approval voting," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 56(1), pages 157-189, May.
    6. Su, Francis Edward & Zerbib, Shira, 2019. "Piercing numbers in approval voting," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 65-71.
    7. Núñez, Matías, 2015. "Threshold voting leads to Type-Revelation," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 211-213.
    8. Sébastien Courtin & Matias Nunez, 2013. "Dominance Solvable Approval Voting Games," Thema Working Papers 2013-27, THEMA (Théorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), CY Cergy-Paris University, ESSEC and CNRS.
    9. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Michele Garagnani & Jaume García-Segarra, 2025. "The framing of elections: cooperation vs. competition," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 65(2), pages 363-385, September.
    10. Duddy, Conal, 2014. "Electing a representative committee by approval ballot: An impossibility result," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 124(1), pages 14-16.
    11. François Maniquet & Philippe Mongin, 2015. "Approval voting and Arrow’s impossibility theorem," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 44(3), pages 519-532, March.

  4. M. Remzi Sanver, 2010. "Approval as an Intrinsic Part of Preference," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Jean-François Laslier & M. Remzi Sanver (ed.), Handbook on Approval Voting, chapter 0, pages 469-481, Springer.

    Cited by:

    1. Justin Kruger & M. Remzi Sanver, 2021. "An Arrovian impossibility in combining ranking and evaluation," Post-Print hal-03347632, HAL.
    2. Eric Kamwa, 2023. "On Two Voting systems that combine approval and preferences: Fallback Voting and Preference Approval Voting," Post-Print hal-03614585, HAL.
    3. Brams, Steven & Potthoff, Richard, 2015. "The Paradox of Grading Systems," MPRA Paper 63268, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Matías Núñez, 2014. "The strategic sincerity of Approval voting," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 56(1), pages 157-189, May.
    5. Alessandro Albano & José Luis García-Lapresta & Antonella Plaia & Mariangela Sciandra, 2023. "A family of distances for preference–approvals," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 323(1), pages 1-29, April.
    6. 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.
    7. Guy Barokas & Yves Sprumont, 2022. "The broken Borda rule and other refinements of approval ranking," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 58(1), pages 187-199, January.
    8. Ulle Endriss, 2013. "Sincerity and manipulation under approval voting," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 74(3), pages 335-355, March.
    9. Alessandro Albano & José Luis García-Lapresta & Antonella Plaia & Mariangela Sciandra, 2024. "Clustering alternatives in preference-approvals via novel pseudometrics," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 33(1), pages 61-87, March.

  5. Steven J. Brams & M. Remzi Sanver, 2009. "Voting Systems that Combine Approval and Preference," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Steven J. Brams & William V. Gehrlein & Fred S. Roberts (ed.), The Mathematics of Preference, Choice and Order, pages 215-237, Springer.

    Cited by:

    1. Justin Kruger & M. Remzi Sanver, 2021. "An Arrovian impossibility in combining ranking and evaluation," Post-Print hal-03347632, HAL.
    2. Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit, 2020. "Axioms for Defeat in Democratic Elections," Papers 2008.08451, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2023.
    3. Richard Potthoff, 2013. "Simple manipulation-resistant voting systems designed to elect Condorcet candidates and suitable for large-scale public elections," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(1), pages 101-122, January.
    4. Federica Ceron & Stéphane Gonzalez, 2019. "A characterization of Approval Voting without the approval balloting assumption," Working Papers 1938, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Etienne (GATE Lyon St-Etienne), Université de Lyon.
    5. Eric Kamwa, 2023. "On two voting systems that combine approval and preferences: fallback voting and preference approval voting," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 196(1), pages 169-205, July.
    6. Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit, 2021. "Axioms for defeat in democratic elections," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 33(4), pages 475-524, October.
    7. Brams, Steven & Potthoff, Richard, 2015. "The Paradox of Grading Systems," MPRA Paper 63268, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Richard Potthoff, 2011. "Condorcet Polling," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 148(1), pages 67-86, July.
    9. Santos-García, Gustavo & Alcantud, José Carlos R., 2025. "A characterization of pairwise dictatorial approbatory social welfare functions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 248(C).
    10. Albano, Alessandro & García-Lapresta, José Luis & Plaia, Antonella & Sciandra, Mariangela, 2026. "Measuring consensus and voter influence in ternary preferences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 333(2), pages 478-492.
    11. Eric Kamwa, 2019. "Condorcet efficiency of the preference approval voting and the probability of selecting the Condorcet loser," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 87(3), pages 299-320, October.
    12. Güth, Werner & Vittoria Levati, M. & Montinari, Natalia, 2014. "Ranking alternatives by a fair bidding rule: A theoretical and experimental analysis," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 206-221.
    13. Alessandro Albano & José Luis García-Lapresta & Antonella Plaia & Mariangela Sciandra, 2023. "A family of distances for preference–approvals," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 323(1), pages 1-29, April.
    14. William V. Gehrlein & Dominique Lepelley, 2015. "The Condorcet Efficiency Advantage that Voter Indifference Gives to Approval Voting Over Some Other Voting Rules," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 243-269, March.
    15. Gilbert Laffond & Jean Lainé, 2012. "Searching for a Compromise in Multiple Referendum," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 551-569, July.
    16. Federico Fioravanti & Zoi Terzopoulou, 2026. "Anchor-proofness in Voting," Papers 2602.04494, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2026.
    17. Núñez, Matías, 2015. "Threshold voting leads to Type-Revelation," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 211-213.
    18. Takashi Kurihara, 2020. "Net Borda rules with desirability," Working Papers 2002, Waseda University, Faculty of Political Science and Economics.
    19. Guy Barokas, 2022. "Revealed desirability: a novel instrument for social welfare," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 93(4), pages 649-661, November.
    20. Haris Aziz & Barton E. Lee, 2020. "The expanding approvals rule: improving proportional representation and monotonicity," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 54(1), pages 1-45, January.
    21. Bora Erdamar & José Luis Garcia-Lapresta & David Pérez-Roman & Remzi Sanver, 2012. "Measuring consensus in a preference-approval context," Working Papers hal-00681297, HAL.
    22. Yao Li & Ying He & Yucheng Dong, 2025. "Preference-sorting structures extending scores and ordered categories: an axiomatic distance approach in group decision making," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 353(3), pages 1019-1051, October.
    23. Yukinori Iwata, 2023. "Strategic nomination and non-manipulable voting procedures," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 27(4), pages 867-891, December.
    24. Guy Barokas & Yves Sprumont, 2022. "The broken Borda rule and other refinements of approval ranking," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 58(1), pages 187-199, January.
    25. Sylvain Béal & Sylvain Ferrières & Philippe Solal, 2023. "A Core-Partition Ranking Solution to Coalitional Ranking Problems," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 965-985, August.
    26. Alessandro Albano & José Luis García-Lapresta & Antonella Plaia & Mariangela Sciandra, 2024. "Clustering alternatives in preference-approvals via novel pseudometrics," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 33(1), pages 61-87, March.
    27. Brams, Steven J. & Kilgour, D. Marc, 2011. "When does approval voting make the "right choices"?," MPRA Paper 34262, University Library of Munich, Germany.

  6. D. Marc Kilgour & Steven J. Brams & M. Remzi Sanver, 2006. "How to Elect a Representative Committee Using Approval Balloting," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Bruno Simeone & Friedrich Pukelsheim (ed.), Mathematics and Democracy, pages 83-95, Springer.

    Cited by:

    1. Murat Çengelci & M. Sanver, 2010. "Simple Collective Identity Functions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(4), pages 417-443, April.
    2. Kamwa, Eric, 2017. "On stable rules for selecting committees," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 36-44.
    3. D. Marc Kilgour, 2016. "Approval elections with a variable number of winners," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 81(2), pages 199-211, August.
    4. Begoña Subiza & Josep E. Peris, 2014. "A Consensual Committee Using Approval Balloting," QM&ET Working Papers 14-5, University of Alicante, D. Quantitative Methods and Economic Theory.
    5. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2018. "The Chamberlin-Courant Rule and the k-Scoring Rules: Agreement and Condorcet Committee Consistency," Working Papers hal-01757761, HAL.
    6. Gilbert Laffond & Jean Lainé, 2012. "Searching for a Compromise in Multiple Referendum," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 551-569, July.
    7. Haris Aziz & Markus Brill & Vincent Conitzer & Edith Elkind & Rupert Freeman & Toby Walsh, 2017. "Justified representation in approval-based committee voting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(2), pages 461-485, February.
    8. Steven Brams & D. Kilgour & M. Sanver, 2007. "A minimax procedure for electing committees," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 132(3), pages 401-420, September.
    9. Steven J. Brams & D. Marc Kilgour & Richard F. Potthoff, 2019. "Multiwinner approval voting: an apportionment approach," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 178(1), pages 67-93, January.
    10. Darmann, Andreas, 2013. "How hard is it to tell which is a Condorcet committee?," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 282-292.
    11. Begoña Subiza & Josep E. Peris, 2017. "A Representative Committee by Approval Balloting," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(5), pages 1029-1040, September.
    12. Mostapha Diss & Ahmed Doghmi, 2016. "Multi-winner scoring election methods: Condorcet consistency and paradoxes," Working Papers halshs-01285526, HAL.
    13. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2020. "On some k-scoring rules for committee elections: agreement and Condorcet Principle," Post-Print hal-02147735, HAL.
    14. Christian Klamler & Daniel Eckert, 2008. "Antipodality in committee selection," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(1), pages 1-5.
    15. Clinton Gubong Gassi, 2024. "Weighted scoring rules for selecting a compatible committee," Working Papers 2024-04, CRESE.

Books

  1. Jean-François Laslier & M. Remzi Sanver (ed.), 2010. "Handbook on Approval Voting," Studies in Choice and Welfare, Springer, number 978-3-642-02839-7, April.

    Cited by:

    1. Justin Kruger & M. Remzi Sanver, 2021. "An Arrovian impossibility in combining ranking and evaluation," Post-Print hal-03347632, HAL.
    2. Sebastien Courtin & Matias Nunez, 2013. "A Map of Approval Voting Equilibria Outcomes," Working Papers hal-00914887, HAL.
    3. Castanheira, Micael & Bouton, Laurent & Llorente-Saguer, Aniol, 2012. "Divided Majority and Information Aggregation: Theory and Experiment," CEPR Discussion Papers 9234, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    4. Núñez, Matías & Laslier, Jean-François, 2015. "Bargaining through Approval," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 63-73.
    5. François Durand & Antonin Macé & Matias Nunez, 2019. "Analysis of Approval Voting in Poisson Games," PSE Working Papers halshs-02049865, HAL.
    6. Piotr Faliszewski & Piotr Skowron & Arkadii Slinko & Nimrod Talmon, 2018. "Multiwinner analogues of the plurality rule: axiomatic and algorithmic perspectives," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(3), pages 513-550, October.
    7. Matías Núñez & Jean Laslier, 2014. "Preference intensity representation: strategic overstating in large elections," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(2), pages 313-340, February.
    8. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa, 2020. "Simulations in Models of Preference Aggregation," Post-Print hal-02424936, HAL.
    9. Reiner Eichenberger & Patricia Schafer, 2023. "On Curing Political Diseases: The Healing Power of Majoritarian Elections in Multi-Member Districts," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 79-93, December.
    10. Nehring, Klaus & Puppe, Clemens, 2019. "Resource allocation by frugal majority rule," Working Paper Series in Economics 131, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    11. Jean-François Laslier & Karine van Der Straeten, 2016. "Strategic Voting in Multi-Winner Elections with Approval Balloting: A Theory for Large Electorates," Working Papers halshs-01304688, HAL.
    12. Antoinette Baujard & Frédéric Gavrel & Herrade Igersheim & Jean-François Laslier & Isabelle Lebon, 2014. "Who's Favored by Evaluative Voting? An Experiment Conducted During the 2012 French Presidential Election," Post-Print hal-00803024, HAL.
    13. Matias Nunez & Laslier Jean François Author-Workplace-Name : Ecole Polytechnique, 2010. "Overstating: A tale of two cities," Thema Working Papers 2010-05, THEMA (Théorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), CY Cergy-Paris University, ESSEC and CNRS.
    14. Tanya Gibbs & Henry W. Chappell, Jr., 2021. "Elections with Multiple Positive and Negative Votes," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 37-47, December.
    15. Eric Kamwa, 2023. "On two voting systems that combine approval and preferences: fallback voting and preference approval voting," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 196(1), pages 169-205, July.
    16. Ginsburgh, Victor & Moreno-Ternero, Juan & Weber, Shlomo, 2016. "Ranking Languages in the European Union:Before and after Brexit," CEPR Discussion Papers 11529, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    17. Tanguiane, Andranick S., 2025. "Analysis of the 2025 Bundestag elections. Part 3 of 4: The third vote perspective Bundestag," Working Paper Series in Economics 169, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    18. Cahan, Dodge & McCabe-Dansted, John & Slinko, Arkadii, 2018. "Asymmetric equilibria in spatial competition under weakly concave scoring rules," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 71-74.
    19. Eric Kamwa, 2019. "On the Likelihood of the Borda Effect: The Overall Probabilities for General Weighted Scoring Rules and Scoring Runoff Rules," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 519-541, June.
    20. Steven J. Brams & William V. Gehrlein & Fred S. Roberts, 2021. "Peter C. Fishburn (1936–2021)," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 57(1), pages 1-3, July.
    21. Ján Palguta, 2011. "Voting Experiments: Measuring Vulnerability of Voting Procedures to Manipulation," Czech Economic Review, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, vol. 5(3), pages 324-345, November.
    22. Jean-François Laslier, 2011. "And the loser is... Plurality Voting," Working Papers hal-00609810, HAL.
    23. Brams, Steven & Potthoff, Richard, 2015. "The Paradox of Grading Systems," MPRA Paper 63268, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    24. Marcus Pivato, 2016. "Asymptotic utilitarianism in scoring rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(2), pages 431-458, August.
    25. Jean-François Laslier, 2016. "Heuristic Voting Under the Alternative Vote: The Efficiency of “Sour Grapes” Behavior," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 57-76, August.
    26. Maurice Salles, 2014. "‘Social choice and welfare’ at 30: its role in the development of social choice theory and welfare economics," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(1), pages 1-16, January.
    27. Warut Suksompong & Nicholas Teh, 2022. "On Maximum Weighted Nash Welfare for Binary Valuations," Papers 2204.03803, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2022.
    28. Jobst Heitzig & Forest W. Simmons, 2020. "Efficient democratic decisions via nondeterministic proportional consensus," Papers 2006.06548, arXiv.org.
    29. Jean-François Laslier & Matías Núñez & Carlos Pimienta, 2015. "Reaching Consensus Through Simultaneous Bargaining," Discussion Papers 2015-08, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    30. Antonin Macé, 2015. "Voting with Evaluations: When Should We Sum? What Should We Sum?," AMSE Working Papers 1544, Aix-Marseille School of Economics, France, revised 29 Oct 2015.
    31. Begoña Subiza & Josep E. Peris, 2014. "A Consensual Committee Using Approval Balloting," QM&ET Working Papers 14-5, University of Alicante, D. Quantitative Methods and Economic Theory.
    32. Matías Núñez, 2014. "The strategic sincerity of Approval voting," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 56(1), pages 157-189, May.
    33. Gehrlein, William V. & Lepelley, Dominique & Moyouwou, Issofa, 2016. "A note on Approval Voting and electing the Condorcet loser," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 115-122.
    34. Sylvain Bouveret & Renaud Blanch & Antoinette Baujard & François Durand & Herrade Igersheim & Jérôme Lang & Annick Laruelle & Jean-François Laslier & Isabelle Lebon & Vincent Merlin, 2019. "Voter Autrement 2017 for the French Presidential Election," Working Papers halshs-02379941, HAL.
    35. Florian Brandl & Felix Brandt & Christian Stricker, 2022. "An analytical and experimental comparison of maximal lottery schemes," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 58(1), pages 5-38, January.
    36. Andrea C. Hupman & Jay Simon, 2023. "The Legacy of Peter Fishburn: Foundational Work and Lasting Impact," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 1-15, March.
    37. Tanguiane, Andranick S., 2022. "Analysis of the 2021 Bundestag elections. 4/4. The third vote application," Working Paper Series in Economics 154, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    38. Su, Francis Edward & Zerbib, Shira, 2019. "Piercing numbers in approval voting," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 65-71.
    39. Eric Kamwa, 2019. "Condorcet efficiency of the preference approval voting and the probability of selecting the Condorcet loser," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 87(3), pages 299-320, October.
    40. Haris Aziz & Alexander Lam & Barton E. Lee & Toby Walsh, 2021. "Strategyproof and Proportionally Fair Facility Location," Papers 2111.01566, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2023.
    41. Brams, Steven J & Kilgour, D. Marc, 2010. "Satisfaction approval voting," MPRA Paper 22709, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    42. Michel Balinski & Rida Laraki, 2016. "Majority Judgment vs Majority Rule," Working Papers hal-01304043, HAL.
    43. Alessandro Albano & José Luis García-Lapresta & Antonella Plaia & Mariangela Sciandra, 2023. "A family of distances for preference–approvals," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 323(1), pages 1-29, April.
    44. William V. Gehrlein & Dominique Lepelley, 2015. "The Condorcet Efficiency Advantage that Voter Indifference Gives to Approval Voting Over Some Other Voting Rules," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 243-269, March.
    45. Pierre Dehez & Victor Ginsburgh, 2018. "Approval Voting and Shapley Ranking," Working Papers ECARES 2018-09, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    46. Gilbert Laffond & Jean Lainé, 2012. "Searching for a Compromise in Multiple Referendum," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 551-569, July.
    47. Mongin, Philippe & Maniquet, François, 2011. "Approval voting and arrow's impossibility theorem," HEC Research Papers Series 954, HEC Paris.
    48. Aaron Hamlin & Whitney Hua, 2023. "The case for approval voting," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 335-345, September.
    49. Matías Núñez & Marcus Pivato, 2016. "Truth-revealing voting rules for large populations ," Working Papers hal-01340317, HAL.
    50. Haris Aziz & Markus Brill & Vincent Conitzer & Edith Elkind & Rupert Freeman & Toby Walsh, 2017. "Justified representation in approval-based committee voting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(2), pages 461-485, February.
    51. Antonin Macé, 2017. "Voting with evaluations: characterizations of evaluative voting and range voting," Working Papers halshs-01222200, HAL.
    52. Arnold Cédrick SOH VOUTSA, 2020. "Approval Voting & Majority Judgment in Weighted Representative Democracy," Thema Working Papers 2020-15, THEMA (Théorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), CY Cergy-Paris University, ESSEC and CNRS.
    53. Jean-François Laslier & Karine van Der Straeten, 2015. "Strategic Voting under Committee Approval: A Theory," PSE Working Papers halshs-01168767, HAL.
    54. Laslier, Jean-François & Núñez, Matías & Pimienta, Carlos, 2017. "Reaching consensus through approval bargaining," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 241-251.
    55. Núñez, Matías, 2015. "Threshold voting leads to Type-Revelation," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 211-213.
    56. Steven J. Brams & D. Marc Kilgour & Richard F. Potthoff, 2019. "Multiwinner approval voting: an apportionment approach," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 178(1), pages 67-93, January.
    57. Sato, Norihisa, 2019. "Approval voting and fixed electorate with dichotomous preferences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 51-60.
    58. Alcantud, José Carlos R. & de Andres Calle, Rocio & Cascon, José Manuel, 2012. "Approval consensus measures," MPRA Paper 39610, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    59. Steven, Brams & Markus, Brill, 2018. "The Excess Method: A Multiwinner Approval Voting Procedure to Allocate Wasted Votes," MPRA Paper 89739, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    60. Trevor Leach & Robert C. Powers, 2020. "Majority rule on j-rich ballot spaces," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 54(4), pages 639-655, April.
    61. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Ðura-Georg Granić, 2012. "Two field experiments on Approval Voting in Germany," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 39(1), pages 171-205, June.
    62. Aziz, Haris & Lam, Alexander & Lee, Barton E. & Walsh, Toby, 2025. "Proportionality-based fairness and strategyproofness in the facility location problem," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    63. Isabelle Lebon & Antoinette Baujard & Frédéric Gavrel & Herrade Igersheim & Jean-François Laslier, 2017. "Ce que le vote par approbation révèle des préférences des électeurs français," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) halshs-01420369, HAL.
    64. José Alcantud & Annick Laruelle, 2014. "Dis&approval voting: a characterization," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 43(1), pages 1-10, June.
    65. Andreas Darmann & Julia Grundner & Christian Klamler, 2017. "Election outcomes under different ways to announce preferences: an analysis of the 2015 parliament election in the Austrian federal state of Styria," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 173(1), pages 201-216, October.
    66. Kilgour, D. Marc & Vetschera, Rudolf, 2018. "Two-player fair division of indivisible items: Comparison of algorithms," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 271(2), pages 620-631.
    67. Mostapha Diss & Ahmed Doghmi, 2016. "Multi-winner scoring election methods: Condorcet consistency and paradoxes," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 97-116, October.
    68. Erik Friese & William V. Gehrlein & Dominique Lepelley & Achill Schürmann, 2017. "The impact of dependence among voters’ preferences with partial indifference," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(6), pages 2793-2812, November.
    69. Haris Aziz & Barton E. Lee, 2020. "The expanding approvals rule: improving proportional representation and monotonicity," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 54(1), pages 1-45, January.
    70. 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.
    71. Erdamar, Bora & Sanver, M. Remzi & Sato, Shin, 2017. "Evaluationwise strategy-proofness," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 227-238.
    72. Pietro Battiston & Marco Magnani & Dimitri Paolini & Luca Rossi, 2025. "Country Music: Positional Voting and Strategic Behavior," Discussion Papers 2025/322, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    73. Andranik Tangian, 2021. "MCDM Application of the Third Vote," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 775-787, August.
    74. Hans Gersbach, 2024. "Forms of new democracy," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 62(4), pages 799-837, June.
    75. J.C.R. Alcantud & R. de Andrés Calle & J.M. Cascón, 2013. "Consensus and the Act of Voting," Studies in Microeconomics, , vol. 1(1), pages 1-22, June.
    76. Uuganbaatar Ninjbat, 2013. "Approval Voting without Faithfulness," Czech Economic Review, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, vol. 7(1), pages 015-020, March.
    77. Martínez, Ricardo & Moreno, Bernardo, 2017. "Qualified voting systems," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 49-54.
    78. Sébastien Courtin & Matias Nunez, 2013. "Dominance Solvable Approval Voting Games," Thema Working Papers 2013-27, THEMA (Théorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), CY Cergy-Paris University, ESSEC and CNRS.
    79. Kölle, Felix, 2020. "Governance and Group Conflict," MPRA Paper 98859, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    80. Karine Van der Straeten & Jean-François Laslier & Nicolas Sauger & André Blais, 2010. "Strategic, sincere, and heuristic voting under four election rules: an experimental study," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 35(3), pages 435-472, September.
    81. Markus Brill & Paul Gölz & Dominik Peters & Ulrike Schmidt-Kraepelin & Kai Wilker, 2022. "Approval-based apportionment," Post-Print hal-03816043, HAL.
    82. Martin Lackner & Piotr Skowron, 2017. "Consistent Approval-Based Multi-Winner Rules," Papers 1704.02453, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2019.
    83. Begoña Subiza & Josep E. Peris, 2017. "A Representative Committee by Approval Balloting," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(5), pages 1029-1040, September.
    84. Wiltrud Kuhlisch & Magnus Roos & Jörg Rothe & Joachim Rudolph & Björn Scheuermann & Dietrich Stoyan, 2016. "A statistical approach to calibrating the scores of biased reviewers of scientific papers," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 79(1), pages 37-57, January.
    85. Herrade Igersheim & Antoinette Baujard & Jean-François Laslier, 2016. "La question du vote. Expérimentations en laboratoire et In Situ," Working Papers 1633, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Etienne (GATE Lyon St-Etienne), Université de Lyon.
    86. Pivato, Marcus, 2013. "Statistical utilitarianism," MPRA Paper 49561, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    87. Mostapha Diss & Issofa Moyouwou & Hatem Smaoui & Eric Kamwa, 2021. "Condorcet efficiency of general weighted scoring rules under IAC: indifference and abstention," Post-Print hal-02196387, HAL.
    88. Moyouwou, Issofa & Tchantcho, Hugue, 2017. "Asymptotic vulnerability of positional voting rules to coalitional manipulation," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 70-82.
    89. Dodge Cahan & Arkadii Slinko, 2018. "Electoral competition under best-worst voting rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(2), pages 259-279, August.
    90. Norihisa Sato, 2014. "A characterization result for approval voting with a variable set of alternatives," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 43(4), pages 809-825, December.
    91. Núñez, Matías & Xefteris, Dimitrios, 2017. "Implementation via approval mechanisms," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 169-181.
    92. Florian Brandl & Felix Brandt, 2020. "Arrovian Aggregation of Convex Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(2), pages 799-844, March.
    93. André Blais & Jean-François Laslier & François Poinas & Karine Straeten, 2015. "Citizens’ preferences about voting rules: self-interest, ideology, and sincerity," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 164(3), pages 423-442, September.
    94. George Tsebelis, 2018. "How Can We Keep Direct Democracy and Avoid “Kolotoumba”," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 81-90, June.
    95. Arnaud Dellis & Mandar Oak, 2013. "Multiple Votes, Multiple Candidacies and Polarization," Adelaide Economics Working Papers 2013-02, Adelaide University, School of Economics.
    96. Michel Balinski & Rida Laraki, 2018. "Majority Judgment vs. Approval Voting," Working Papers 2018-15, Center for Research in Economics and Statistics.
    97. Pietro Speroni di Fenizio & Daniele A. Gewurz, 2019. "The space of all proportional voting systems and the most majoritarian among them," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 52(4), pages 663-683, April.
    98. Markus Brill & Jean-François Laslier & Piotr Skowron, 2018. "Multiwinner approval rules as apportionment methods," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 30(3), pages 358-382, July.
    99. Duddy, Conal, 2014. "Electing a representative committee by approval ballot: An impossibility result," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 124(1), pages 14-16.
    100. Durand, François & Macé, Antonin & Núñez, Matías, 2024. "Voter coordination in elections: A case for approval voting," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 1-34.
    101. Guy Barokas & Yves Sprumont, 2022. "The broken Borda rule and other refinements of approval ranking," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 58(1), pages 187-199, January.
    102. Miller, Alan D., 2013. "Community standards," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(6), pages 2696-2705.
    103. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Johannes Buckenmaier, 2018. "Strictly sincere best responses under approval voting and arbitrary preferences," ECON - Working Papers 302, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    104. Kölle, Felix, 2022. "Governance and competition," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    105. Baumeister, Dorothea & Erdélyi, Gábor & Erdélyi, Olivia J. & Rothe, Jörg, 2015. "Complexity of manipulation and bribery in judgment aggregation for uniform premise-based quota rules," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 19-30.
    106. Ulle Endriss, 2013. "Sincerity and manipulation under approval voting," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 74(3), pages 335-355, March.
    107. Gaertner, Wulf & Xu, Yongsheng, 2012. "A general scoring rule," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 193-196.
    108. Alessandro Albano & José Luis García-Lapresta & Antonella Plaia & Mariangela Sciandra, 2024. "Clustering alternatives in preference-approvals via novel pseudometrics," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 33(1), pages 61-87, March.
    109. Elias Bouacida, 2021. "Identifying Choice Correspondences," Working Papers halshs-01998001, HAL.
    110. Felix Brandt & Patrick Lederer, 2021. "Characterizing the Top Cycle via Strategyproofness," Papers 2108.04622, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2023.
    111. Duddy, Conal, 2015. "Fair sharing under dichotomous preferences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 1-5.
    112. Abdelhalim El Ouafdi & Dominique Lepelley & Hatem Smaoui, 2020. "On the Condorcet efficiency of evaluative voting (and other voting rules) with trichotomous preferences," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 289(2), pages 227-241, June.
    113. Martin Lackner & Jan Maly, 2020. "Approval-Based Shortlisting," Papers 2005.07094, arXiv.org, revised May 2022.
    114. Alós-Ferrer, Carlos & Buckenmaier, Johannes, 2019. "Strongly sincere best responses under approval voting and arbitrary preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 388-401.
    115. Aki Lehtinen, 2011. "A welfarist critique of social choice theory," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 23(3), pages 359-381, July.
    116. Denis Bouyssou & M Remzi Sanver, 2022. "Simple but powerful models of stereotype formation ," Post-Print hal-03766376, HAL.
    117. Hans Gersbach, 2022. "New Forms of Democracy," CESifo Working Paper Series 10134, CESifo.

IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.