Elections Can be Manipulated Often
The Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem states that every non-trivial voting method between at least 3 alternatives can be strategically manipulated. We prove a quantitative version of the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem: a random manipulation by a single random voter will succeed with non-negligible probability for every neutral voting method between 3 alternatives that is far from being a dictatorship.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
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.:
- Stefan Maus & Hans Peters & Ton Storcken, 2007.
"Minimal manipulability: anonymity and unanimity,"
Social Choice and Welfare,
Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 29(2), pages 247-269, September.
- Maus,Stefan & Peters,Hans & Storcken,Ton, 2004. "Minimal Manipulability: Anonymity and Unanimity," Research Memorandum 026, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
- Satterthwaite, Mark Allen, 1975. "Strategy-proofness and Arrow's conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 187-217, April.
- Gibbard, Allan, 1973. "Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(4), pages 587-601, July. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cla:levarc:122247000000002416. 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: (David K. Levine)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.