Random walks and voting theory
Voters' preferences depend on the available information. Following Case-Based Decision Theory, we assume that this information is processed additively. We prove that the collective preferences deduced from the individual ones through majority vote cannot be arbitrary, as soon as a winning quota is required. The proof is based on a new result on random walks.
|Date of creation:||01 May 2002|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://www.hec.fr/
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.:
- Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1995.
"Case-Based Decision Theory,"
The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
MIT Press, vol. 110(3), pages 605-39, August.
- Itzhak Gilboa & Nicolas Vieille, 2004.
"Majority vote following a debate,"
Social Choice and Welfare,
Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 115-125, 08.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ebg:heccah:0753. 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: (Sandra Dupouy)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.