IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fth/michet/89-25.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Predicting Committee Behavior In Majority-Rule Voting Experiments

Author

Listed:
  • SALANT, S.W.
  • GOODSTEIN, E.

Abstract

In past experiments, committees voting under majority rule have often failed to choose the Condorcet alternative (the core). Since this failure of theory might be due to flaws in experimental design, we developed a voting procedure in which the unique element in the core is also the unique outcome when a Nash equilibrium in undominated strategies for the whole game induces a Nash equilibrium in undominated strategies for every subgame. Nevertheless, our committees frequently choose other alternatives. To explain these results, we formulated a new theory that takes account of threshold effects and identifies a "selection set" predicted to contain the committee's choice. The revised theory performs well both in our experiments and in past experiments.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Salant, S.W. & Goodstein, E., 1989. "Predicting Committee Behavior In Majority-Rule Voting Experiments," Papers 89-25, Michigan - Center for Research on Economic & Social Theory.
    • Handle: RePEc:fth:michet:89-25
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Jan Sauermann & André Kaiser, 2010. "Taking Others into Account: Self‐Interest and Fairness in Majority Decision Making," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(3), pages 667-685, July.
    2. Tovey, Craig A., 2010. "A finite exact algorithm for epsilon-core membership in two dimensions," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 178-180, November.
    3. Mathieu Martin & Zéphirin Nganmeni, 2019. "The fi nagle point might not be within the Ɛ-core: a contradiction with Bräuninger's result," THEMA Working Papers 2019-03, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    4. Craig A Tovey, 2011. "The finagle point and the epsilon-core: A comment on Bräuninger’s proof," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 23(1), pages 135-139, January.
    5. Tovey, Craig A., 2010. "The instability of instability of centered distributions," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 53-73, January.
    6. Grelak, Eric & Koford, Kenneth, 1997. "A re-examination of the Fiorina-Plott and Eavey voting experiments: How much do cardinal payoffs influence outcomes?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 571-589, April.
    7. Cheryl L. Eavey, 1991. "Patterns of Distribution in Spatial Games," Rationality and Society, , vol. 3(4), pages 450-474, October.
    8. Meszerics, Tamás, 1997. "Stratégiai viselkedés és bizottsági döntés [Strategic behaviour and committee decison]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(7), pages 687-697.
    9. Thomas Bräuninger, 2007. "Stability in Spatial Voting Games with Restricted Preference Maximizing," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 19(2), pages 173-191, April.
    10. Mathieu Martin & Zéphirin Nganmeni & Ashley Piggins & Élise F. Tchouante, 2022. "Pure-strategy Nash equilibrium in the spatial model with valence: existence and characterization," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 190(3), pages 301-316, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    voting ; game theory ; behaviour;
    All these keywords.

    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:fth:michet:89-25. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Thomas Krichel (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.