IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehu/ikerla/19482.html

To disqualify or not to qualify: This is the other question

Author

Listed:
  • Rodríguez Alcantud, José Carlos
  • Laruelle, Annick

Abstract

In this paper we study ternary trichotomous rules, that allows for three levels of input, positive, neutral and negative and three levels of output, positive, undetermined and negative. We illustrate the interest of such rules on collective identity functions that deal with formation of clubs. Usually the question addressed is whether the individual quali es or does not, and the answer is either positive or not. In some situations it may be relevant to distinguish between unquali cation and disquali cation.

Suggested Citation

  • Rodríguez Alcantud, José Carlos & Laruelle, Annick, 2016. "To disqualify or not to qualify: This is the other question," IKERLANAK info:eu-repo/grantAgreeme, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Fundamentos del Análisis Económico I.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehu:ikerla:19482
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://addi.ehu.eus/handle/10810/19482
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Murat Çengelci & M. Sanver, 2010. "Simple Collective Identity Functions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(4), pages 417-443, April.
    2. Houy, Nicolas, 2007. "Some further characterizations for the forgotten voting rules," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 111-121, January.
    3. Annick Laruelle & Federico Valenciano, 2012. "Quaternary dichotomous voting rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 38(3), pages 431-454, March.
    4. Samet, Dov & Schmeidler, David, 2003. "Between liberalism and democracy," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 110(2), pages 213-233, June.
    5. Josep Freixas & William S. Zwicker, 2003. "Weighted voting, abstention, and multiple levels of approval," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 21(3), pages 399-431, December.
    6. Annick Laruelle & Federico Valenciano, 2011. "Majorities with a quorum," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 23(2), pages 241-259, April.
    7. Llamazares, Bonifacio, 2006. "The forgotten decision rules: Majority rules based on difference of votes," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 311-326, May.
    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. Alcantud, José Carlos R. & Laruelle, Annick, 2018. "Collective identity functions with status quo," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 159-166.

    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. Marc Pauly, 2013. "Characterizing referenda with quorums via strategy-proofness," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(4), pages 581-597, October.
    2. Terzopoulou, Zoi, 2020. "Quota rules for incomplete judgments," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 23-36.
    3. Alaitz Artabe & Annick Laruelle & Federico Valenciano, 2012. "Preferences, actions and voting rules," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 3(1), pages 15-28, March.
    4. Friedman, Jane & Parker, Cameron, 2018. "The conditional Shapley–Shubik measure for ternary voting games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 379-390.
    5. Llamazares, Bonifacio & Pérez-Asurmendi, Patrizia, 2013. "Triple-acyclicity in majorities based on difference in support," MPRA Paper 52218, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Sébastien Courtin & Zéphirin Nganmeni & Bertrand Tchantcho, 2016. "The Shapley–Shubik power index for dichotomous multi-type games," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 81(3), pages 413-426, September.
    7. Josep Freixas & Dani Samaniego, 2024. "Some characterizations of resolute majority rules," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 336(3), pages 2111-2124, May.
    8. Courtin, Sébastien & Nganmeni, Zéphirin & Tchantcho, Bertrand, 2017. "Dichotomous multi-type games with a coalition structure," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 9-17.
    9. Luís Aguiar-Conraria & Pedro C. Magalhães & Christoph A. Vanberg, 2020. "What are the best quorum rules? A laboratory investigation," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 185(1), pages 215-231, October.
    10. Balázs Sziklai, 2018. "How to identify experts in a community?," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 47(1), pages 155-173, March.
    11. Bonifacio Llamazares, 2013. "On the structure of voting systems between two alternatives," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 17(3), pages 239-248, September.
    12. King, Sarah Schulz & Powers, Robert C., 2018. "Beyond neutrality: Extended difference of votes rules," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 146-152.
    13. Yoichi Hizen, 2021. "A Referendum Experiment with Participation Quorums," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(1), pages 19-47, February.
    14. Kurz, Sascha & Mayer, Alexander & Napel, Stefan, 2021. "Influence in weighted committees," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    15. Richard Baron & Mostapha Diss & Eric Rémila & Philippe Solal, 2015. "A geometric examination of majorities based on difference in support," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(1), pages 123-153, June.
    16. Mostapha Diss & Patrizia Pérez-Asurmendi, 2015. "Consistent collective decisions under majorities based on difference of votes," Working Papers halshs-01241996, HAL.
    17. Dimitrov, Dinko & Puppe, Clemens, 2011. "Non-bossy social classification," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 162-165.
    18. José Luis Garcí a-Lapresta & Bonifacio Llamazares, 2010. "Preference Intensities and Majority Decisions Based on Difference of Support Between Alternatives," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 19(6), pages 527-542, November.
    19. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:4:y:2007:i:4:p:1-8 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Stefano Vannucci, 2007. "Virtuous Circles and Contested Identities: on Collective Identification Procedures with Independent Qualified Certification," Department of Economics University of Siena 501, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    21. Sébastien Courtin & Zéphirin Nganmeni & Bertrand Tchantcho, 2017. "Dichotomous multi-type games with a coalition structure," Post-Print halshs-01545772, HAL.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:ehu:ikerla:19482. 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: Alcira Macías Redondo (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/f1ehues.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.