IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-01245273.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Value of Research Based on Simple Assumptions about Voters’ Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • William V. Gehrlein

    (University of Delaware [Newark])

  • Dominique Lepelley

    (CEMOI - Centre d'Économie et de Management de l'Océan Indien - UR - Université de La Réunion)

Abstract

Many people have found it to be very interesting to think about strange and counterintuitive outcomes that might possibly be observed when a group of voters takes on the task of selecting a winning candidate from a set of available candidates. Books have been written to describe many of these paradoxical outcomes and to categorize them according to the types of unusual behaviors that they display. The categories of voting paradoxes that are defined by Nurmi (1999) are used in this current study.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • William V. Gehrlein & Dominique Lepelley, 2012. "The Value of Research Based on Simple Assumptions about Voters’ Preferences," Post-Print hal-01245273, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01245273
    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. Mostapha Diss & Ahmed Doghmi, 2016. "Multi-winner scoring election methods: Condorcet consistency and paradoxes," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 97-116, October.
    2. William Gehrlein & Florenz Plassmann, 2014. "A comparison of theoretical and empirical evaluations of the Borda Compromise," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 43(3), pages 747-772, October.
    3. 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.

    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:hal:journl:hal-01245273. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.