IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Monotonicity paradoxes in three-candidate elections using scoring elimination rules


  • Dominique Lepelley

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

  • Issofa Moyouwou

    (MASS - Université de Yaoundé I [Yaoundé])

  • Hatem Smaoui

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


Scoring elimination rules (SER), that give points to candidates according to their rank in voters' preference orders and eliminate the candidate(s) with the lowest number of points, constitute an important class of voting rules. This class of rules, that includes some famous voting methods such as Plurality Runoff or Coombs Rule, suffers from a severe pathology known as monotonicity paradox or monotonicity failure, that is, getting more points from voters can make a candidate a loser and getting fewer points can make a candidate a winner. In this paper, we study three-candidate elections and we identify, under various conditions, which SER minimizes the probability that a monotonicity paradox occurs. We also analyze some strategic aspects of these monotonicity failures. The probability model on which our results are based is the impartial anonymous culture condition, often used in this kind of study.

Suggested Citation

  • Dominique Lepelley & Issofa Moyouwou & Hatem Smaoui, 2018. "Monotonicity paradoxes in three-candidate elections using scoring elimination rules," Post-Print hal-01697627, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01697627
    DOI: 10.1007/s00355-017-1069-1
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server:

    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:

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Hatem Smaoui & Dominique Lepelley & Issofa Moyouwou, 2016. "Borda elimination rule and monotonicity paradoxes in three-candidate elections," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 36(3), pages 1722-1728.
    2. Dominique Lepelley & Ahmed Louichi & Hatem Smaoui, 2008. "On Ehrhart polynomials and probability calculations in voting theory," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 30(3), pages 363-383, April.
    3. William Gehrlein & Dominique Lepelley & Issofa Moyouwou, 2015. "Voters’ preference diversity, concepts of agreement and Condorcet’s paradox," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 49(6), pages 2345-2368, November.
    4. Florenz Plassmann & T. Tideman, 2014. "How frequently do different voting rules encounter voting paradoxes in three-candidate elections?," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(1), pages 31-75, January.
    5. Gehrlein, William V., 1982. "Condorcet efficiency and constant scoring rules," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 2(2), pages 123-130, March.
    6. Lepelley, Dominique & Chantreuil, Frederic & Berg, Sven, 1996. "The likelihood of monotonicity paradoxes in run-off elections," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 133-146, June.
    7. 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.
    8. Smith, John H, 1973. "Aggregation of Preferences with Variable Electorate," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(6), pages 1027-1041, November.
    9. Alexander I. Barvinok, 1994. "A Polynomial Time Algorithm for Counting Integral Points in Polyhedra When the Dimension is Fixed," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 769-779, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2018. "The Chamberlin-Courant Rule and the k-Scoring Rules: Agreement and Condorcet Committee Consistency," Working Papers hal-01757761, HAL.
    2. Daniela Bubboloni & Mostapha Diss & Michele Gori, 2018. "Extensions of the Simpson voting rule to the committee selection setting," Working Papers 1813, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    3. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Issofa Moyouwou & Hatem Smaoui, 2019. "Condorcet efficiency of general weighted scoring rules under IAC: indifference and abstention," Working Papers hal-02196387, HAL.
    4. Mostapha Diss & Issofa Moyouwou & Hatem Smaoui & Eric Kamwa, 2020. "Condorcet efficiency of general weighted scoring rules under IAC: indifference and abstention," Post-Print hal-02196387, HAL.
    5. repec:spr:grdene:v:27:y:2018:i:4:d:10.1007_s10726-018-9580-z is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    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-01697627. 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: (CCSD). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.