Comparing Generalized Median Voter Schemes According to their Manipulability
We propose a simple criterion to compare generalized median voter schemes according to their manipulability. We identify three nec- essary and sufficient conditions for the comparability of two generalized median voter schemes in terms of their vulnerability to manipulation. The three conditions are stated using the two associated families of monotonic fixed ballots and depend very much on the power each agent has to unilat- erally change the outcomes of the two generalized median voter schemes. We perform a specific analysis of all median voter schemes, the anonymous subfamily of generalized median voter schemes.
|Date of creation:||17 Feb 2014|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 08193, Bellaterra, Barcelona|
Phone: 34 93 592 1203
Fax: +34 93 542-1223
Web page: http://pareto.uab.cat
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Serizawa Shigehiro, 1995. "Power of Voters and Domain of Preferences Where Voting by Committees Is Strategy-Proof," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 599-608, December.
- Barbera, S. & Masso, J. & Neme, A., 1992.
"Voting Under Constraints,"
UFAE and IAE Working Papers
200.92, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Anàlisi Econòmica (UAB) and Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica (CSIC).
- Parag A. Pathak & Tayfun SÃ¶nmez, 2013.
"School Admissions Reform in Chicago and England: Comparing Mechanisms by Their Vulnerability to Manipulation,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 103(1), pages 80-106, February.
- Parag A. Pathak & Tayfun Sönmez, 2011. "School Admissions Reform in Chicago and England: Comparing Mechanisms by Their Vulnerability to Manipulation," NBER Working Papers 16783, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Parag A. Pathak & Tayfun Sönmez, 2011. "School Admissions Reform in Chicago and England: Comparing Mechanisms by their Vulnerability to Manipulation," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 784, Boston College Department of Economics.
- H. Moulin, 1980. "On strategy-proofness and single peakedness," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 437-455, January.
- Ehud Kalai & Eitan Muller, 1977.
"Characterization of Domains Admitting Nondictatorial Social Welfare Functions and Nonmanipulable Voting Procedures,"
234, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Kalai, Ehud & Muller, Eitan, 1977. "Characterization of domains admitting nondictatorial social welfare functions and nonmanipulable voting procedures," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 457-469, December.
- Kentaro Hatsumi & Dolors Berga & Shigehiro Serizawa, 2011. "A maximal domain for strategy-proof and no-vetoer rules in the multi-object choice model," ISER Discussion Paper 0809, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University, revised Feb 2013.
- Berga, Dolors & Serizawa, Shigehiro, 2000.
"Maximal Domain for Strategy-Proof Rules with One Public Good,"
Journal of Economic Theory,
Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 39-61, January.
- Berga, D & Serizawa, S, 1996. "Maximal Domain for Strategy-Proof Rules with one Public Good," UFAE and IAE Working Papers 353.96, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Anàlisi Econòmica (UAB) and Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica (CSIC).
- Ching, Stephen & Serizawa, Shigehiro, 1998. "A Maximal Domain for the Existence of Strategy-Proof Rules," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 78(1), pages 157-166, January.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aub:autbar:946.14. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Xavier Vila)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.