IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_4808.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Level r Consensus and Stable Social Choice

Author

Listed:
  • Muhammad Mahajne
  • Shmuel Nitzan
  • Oscar Volij

Abstract

We propose the concept of level r consensus as a useful property of a preference profile which considerably enhances the stability of social choice. This concept involves a weakening of unanimity, the most extreme form of consensus. It is shown that if a preference profile exhibits level r consensus around a given preference relation, the associated majority relation is transitive. In addition, the majority relation coincides with the preference relation around which there is such consensus. Furthermore, if the level of consensus is sufficiently strong, the Condorcet winner is chosen by all the scoring rules. Level r consensus therefore ensures the Condorcet consistency of all scoring rules, thus eliminating the tension between decision rules inspired by ranking-based utilitarianism and the majority rule.

Suggested Citation

  • Muhammad Mahajne & Shmuel Nitzan & Oscar Volij, 2014. "Level r Consensus and Stable Social Choice," CESifo Working Paper Series 4808, CESifo.
    • Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_4808
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cesifo.org/DocDL/cesifo1_wp4808.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Olivier Hudry & Bernard Monjardet, 2010. "Consensus theories: An oriented survey," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 10057, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    2. Farkas, Daniel & Nitzan, Shmuel, 1979. "The Borda Rule and Pareto Stability: A Comment," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(5), pages 1305-1306, September.
    3. Eyal Baharad & Shmuel Nitzan, 2006. "On the selection of the same winner by all scoring rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 26(3), pages 597-601, June.
    4. Hannu Nurmi, 2004. "A Comparison of Some Distance-Based Choice Rules in Ranking Environments," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 57(1), pages 5-24, August.
    5. Nick Baigent, 1987. "Preference Proximity and Anonymous Social Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 102(1), pages 161-169.
    6. Saari,Donald G., 2008. "Disposing Dictators, Demystifying Voting Paradoxes," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521516051.
    7. Saari, Donald G., 1989. "A dictionary for voting paradoxes," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 443-475, August.
    8. Saari,Donald G., 2008. "Disposing Dictators, Demystifying Voting Paradoxes," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521731607.
    9. Lerer, Ehud & Nitzan, Shmuel, 1985. "Some general results on the metric rationalization for social decision rules," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 191-201, October.
    10. Shmuel Nitzan, 1989. "More on the Preservation of Preference Proximity and Anonymous Social Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 104(1), pages 187-190.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Muhammad Mahajne & Shmuel Nitzan & Oscar Volij, 2015. "Level $$r$$ r consensus and stable social choice," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(4), pages 805-817, December.
    2. Shmuel Nitzan, 2010. "Demystifying the ‘metric approach to social compromise with the unanimity criterion’," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 35(1), pages 25-28, June.
    3. Edith Elkind & Piotr Faliszewski & Arkadii Slinko, 2015. "Distance rationalization of voting rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(2), pages 345-377, September.
    4. Wu-Hsiung Huang, 2014. "Singularity and Arrow’s paradox," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(3), pages 671-706, March.
    5. Saari, Donald G. & McIntee, Tomas J., 2013. "Connecting pairwise and positional election outcomes," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 140-151.
    6. Mostapha Diss & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2018. "Another perspective on Borda’s paradox," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(1), pages 99-121, January.
    7. 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.
    8. Noriaki Okamoto & Toyotaka Sakai, 2019. "The Borda rule and the pairwise-majority-loser revisited," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 23(1), pages 75-89, June.
    9. Lee Gibson & Robert Powers, 2012. "An extension of McGarvey’s theorem from the perspective of the plurality collective choice mechanism," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 38(1), pages 101-108, January.
    10. Terzopoulou, Zoi & Endriss, Ulle, 2021. "The Borda class," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 31-40.
    11. Michael Miller & Daniel Osherson, 2009. "Methods for distance-based judgment aggregation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 32(4), pages 575-601, May.
    12. Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit, 2020. "Arrow’s decisive coalitions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 54(2), pages 463-505, March.
    13. Bhattacharya, Mihir & Gravel, Nicolas, 2021. "Is the preference of the majority representative ?," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 87-94.
    14. Lauwers, Luc, 2000. "Topological social choice," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 1-39, July.
    15. Thomas Ratliff & Donald Saari, 2014. "Complexities of electing diverse committees," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 43(1), pages 55-71, June.
    16. Conal Duddy & Ashley Piggins & William Zwicker, 2016. "Aggregation of binary evaluations: a Borda-like approach," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(2), pages 301-333, February.
    17. Andjiga, Nicolas G. & Mekuko, Aurelien Y. & Moyouwou, Issofa, 2014. "Metric rationalization of social welfare functions," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 14-23.
    18. Pierre Dehez & Victor Ginsburgh, 2020. "Approval voting and Shapley ranking," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 184(3), pages 415-428, September.
    19. Peter Emerson, 2013. "The original Borda count and partial voting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(2), pages 353-358, February.
    20. Donald G. Saari, 2014. "A New Way to Analyze Paired Comparison Rules," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 39(3), pages 647-655, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    social choice; unanimity; consensus; preference aggregation rules; transitivity; simple majority; scoring rules; invariance to rule selection;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations

    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:ces:ceswps:_4808. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

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

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

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

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Klaus Wohlrabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.html .

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

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