IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/wpaper/halshs-00993015.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A geometric examination of majorities based on difference in support

Author

Listed:
  • Richard Baron

    (GATE Lyon Saint-Étienne - Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon - Saint-Etienne - ENS de Lyon - École normale supérieure de Lyon - UL2 - Université Lumière - Lyon 2 - UCBL - Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 - Université de Lyon - UJM - Université Jean Monnet - Saint-Étienne - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Mostapha Diss

    (GATE Lyon Saint-Étienne - Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon - Saint-Etienne - ENS de Lyon - École normale supérieure de Lyon - UL2 - Université Lumière - Lyon 2 - UCBL - Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 - Université de Lyon - UJM - Université Jean Monnet - Saint-Étienne - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Eric Rémila

    (GATE Lyon Saint-Étienne - Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon - Saint-Etienne - ENS de Lyon - École normale supérieure de Lyon - UL2 - Université Lumière - Lyon 2 - UCBL - Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 - Université de Lyon - UJM - Université Jean Monnet - Saint-Étienne - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Philippe Solal

    (GATE Lyon Saint-Étienne - Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon - Saint-Etienne - ENS de Lyon - École normale supérieure de Lyon - UL2 - Université Lumière - Lyon 2 - UCBL - Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 - Université de Lyon - UJM - Université Jean Monnet - Saint-Étienne - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

Reciprocal preferences have been introduced in the literature of social choice theory in order to deal with preference intensities. They allow individuals to show preference intensities in the unit interval among each pair of options. In this framework, majority based on difference in support can be used as a method of aggregation of individual preferences into a collective preference: option a is preferred to option b if the sum of the intensities for a exceeds the aggregated intensity of b in a threshold given by a real number located between 0 and the total number of voters. Based on a three dimensional geometric approach, we provide a geometric analysis of the non transitivity of the collective preference relations obtained by majority rule based on difference in support. This aspect is studied by assuming that each individual reciprocal preference satisfies a g-stochastic transitivity property, which is stronger than the usual notion of transitivity

Suggested Citation

  • Richard Baron & Mostapha Diss & Eric Rémila & Philippe Solal, 2014. "A geometric examination of majorities based on difference in support," Working Papers halshs-00993015, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:halshs-00993015
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00993015
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00993015/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Garcia-Lapresta, Jose Luis & Llamazares, Bonifacio, 2001. "Majority decisions based on difference of votes," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 463-481, June.
    2. Houy, Nicolas, 2007. "Some further characterizations for the forgotten voting rules," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 111-121, January.
    3. B. Baets & H. Meyer & B. Schuymer, 2006. "Cyclic Evaluation of Transitivity of Reciprocal Relations," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 26(2), pages 217-238, April.
    4. Llamazares, Bonifacio, 2004. "Simple and absolute special majorities generated by OWA operators," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(3), pages 707-720, November.
    5. 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.
    6. Rajat Deb & Manabendra Dasgupta, 1996. "Transitivity and fuzzy preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 13(3), pages 305-318.
    7. William V. Gehrlein & Dominique Lepelley, 2012. "The Value of Research Based on Simple Assumptions about Voters’ Preferences," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Dan S. Felsenthal & Moshé Machover (ed.), Electoral Systems, chapter 0, pages 173-199, Springer.
    8. JosÊ Luis GarcÎa-Lapresta & Bonifacio Llamazares, 2000. "Aggregation of fuzzy preferences: Some rules of the mean," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 17(4), pages 673-690.
    9. Basu, Kaushik, 1984. "Fuzzy revealed preference theory," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 212-227, April.
    10. 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.
    11. Wade D. Cook & Moshe Kress, 1985. "Ordinal Ranking with Intensity of Preference," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(1), pages 26-32, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Llamazares, Bonifacio & Pérez-Asurmendi, Patrizia, 2013. "Triple-acyclicity in majorities based on difference in support," MPRA Paper 52218, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Mostapha Diss & Patrizia Pérez-Asurmendi, 2016. "Probabilities of Consistent Election Outcomes with Majorities Based on Difference in Support," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(5), pages 967-994, September.
    3. Conal Duddy & Ashley Piggins, 2018. "On some oligarchy results when social preference is fuzzy," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(4), pages 717-735, December.
    4. 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.
    5. King, Sarah Schulz & Powers, Robert C., 2018. "Beyond neutrality: Extended difference of votes rules," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 146-152.
    6. Mostapha Diss & Patrizia Pérez-Asurmendi, 2015. "Consistent collective decisions under majorities based on difference of votes," Working Papers 1533, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    7. Mostapha Diss & Patrizia Pérez-Asurmendi, 2016. "Consistent collective decisions under majorities based on difference of votes," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(3), pages 473-494, March.
    8. Mostapha Diss & Patrizia Pérez-Asurmendi, 2015. "Consistent collective decisions under majorities based on difference of votes," Working Papers halshs-01241996, HAL.
    9. Perote-Pena, Juan & Piggins, Ashley, 2007. "Strategy-proof fuzzy aggregation rules," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 564-580, June.
    10. Hyewon Jeong & Biung-Ghi Ju, 2017. "Resolute majority rules," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 82(1), pages 31-39, January.
    11. Piggins, Ashley & Duddy, Conal, 2016. "Oligarchy and soft incompleteness," MPRA Paper 72392, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. José Carlos R. Alcantud, 2020. "Simple Majorities with Voice but No Vote," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(5), pages 803-822, October.
    13. Houy, Nicolas, 2007. "Some further characterizations for the forgotten voting rules," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 111-121, January.
    14. 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.
    15. De Meyer, H. & De Baets, B. & De Schuymer, B., 2007. "On the transitivity of the comonotonic and countermonotonic comparison of random variables," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 177-193, January.
    16. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:4:y:2007:i:4:p:1-8 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Conal Duddy & Juan Perote-Peña & Ashley Piggins, 2011. "Arrow’s theorem and max-star transitivity," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 36(1), pages 25-34, January.
    18. Geslin, Stephanie & Salles, Maurice & Ziad, Abderrahmane, 2003. "Fuzzy aggregation in economic environments: I. Quantitative fuzziness, public goods and monotonicity assumptions," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 155-166, April.
    19. Maes, Koen C. & Saminger, Susanne & De Baets, Bernard, 2007. "Representation and construction of self-dual aggregation operators," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(1), pages 472-487, February.
    20. Gleb Beliakov & Simon James & Tim Wilkin, 2017. "Aggregation and consensus for preference relations based on fuzzy partial orders," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 409-428, December.
    21. Terzopoulou, Zoi, 2020. "Quota rules for incomplete judgments," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 23-36.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Geometric voting; Reciprocal preferences; Difference in support; Stochastic transitivity;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior

    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:hal:wpaper:halshs-00993015. 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: 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.