IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cea/doctra/e2003_09.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Plurality Rule Works in Three-Candidate Elections

Author

Abstract

In the citizen-candidate approach each citizen chooses whether or not to run as candidate. In this paper we find that the strategic entry-exit decision of the candidates eliminates one of the most undesirable properties of Plurality rule, namely to elect a poor candidate in three-candidate elections since as we show, the Condorcet winner among the self-declared candidates is always elected. All the equilibrium configurations where up to three candidates enter the race are described. We additionally find that it is in those equilibria where four or more citizens become candidate that the Condorcet loser among the self-declared candidates can be elected.

Suggested Citation

  • Bernardo Moreno & M. Socorro Puy, 2003. "Plurality Rule Works in Three-Candidate Elections," Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces E2003/09, Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
  • Handle: RePEc:cea:doctra:e2003_09
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://public.centrodeestudiosandaluces.es/pdfs/E200309.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bernardo Moreno & M. Socorro Puy, 2005. "The scoring rules in an endogenous election," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 25(1), pages 115-125, October.
    2. Saari, Donald G., 1999. "Explaining All Three-Alternative Voting Outcomes," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 313-355, August.
    3. Gehrlein, William V., 1992. "Condorcet efficiency of simple voting rules for large electorates," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 61-66, September.
    4. Martin J. Osborne & Al Slivinski, 1996. "A Model of Political Competition with Citizen-Candidates," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 111(1), pages 65-96.
    5. Timothy Besley & Stephen Coate, 1997. "An Economic Model of Representative Democracy," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 112(1), pages 85-114.
    6. Thomas R. Palfrey, 1984. "Spatial Equilibrium with Entry," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 51(1), pages 139-156.
    7. Dutta, Bhaskar & Jackson, Matthew O & Le Breton, Michel, 2001. "Strategic Candidacy and Voting Procedures," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(4), pages 1013-1037, July.
    8. Dan Usher, 2005. "Assessing the citizen – candidate model," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 125(1), pages 43-65, July.
    9. Dominique Lepelley & Vincent Merlin, 1998. "Choix social positionnel et principe majoritaire," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 51, pages 29-48.
    10. repec:adr:anecst:y:1998:i:51:p:02 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. James Green-Armytage, 2014. "Strategic voting and nomination," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(1), pages 111-138, January.
    2. Bernardo Moreno & M. Socorro Puy, 2005. "The scoring rules in an endogenous election," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 25(1), pages 115-125, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Citizen-candidate; Condorcet Consistency; Plurality Rule.;

    JEL classification:

    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cea:doctra:e2003_09. 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: (Susana Mérida). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/fcanges.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.