IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hig/wpaper/188-ec-2018.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An Informational Basis for Voting Rules

Author

Listed:
  • Alexander V. Karpov

    (National Research University Higher School of Economics)

Abstract

This paper presents a novel combinatorial approach for voting rule analysis. Applying reversal symmetry, we introduce a new class of preference profiles and a new representation (bracelet representation). By applying an impartial, anonymous, and neutral culture model for the case of three alternatives, we obtain precise theoretical values for the number of voting situations for the plurality rule, the run-off rule, the Kemeny rule, the Borda rule, and the scoring rules in the extreme case. From enumerative combinatorics, we obtain an information utilization index for these rules. The main results are obtained for the case of three alternative

Suggested Citation

  • Alexander V. Karpov, 2018. "An Informational Basis for Voting Rules," HSE Working papers WP BRP 188/EC/2018, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:hig:wpaper:188/ec/2018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://wp.hse.ru/data/2018/04/04/1164595187/188EC2018.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Saari, Donald G., 1999. "Explaining All Three-Alternative Voting Outcomes," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 313-355, August.
    2. Yuliya Veselova, 2016. "The difference between manipulability indices in the IC and IANC models," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(3), pages 609-638, March.
    3. Daniel Eckert & Christian Klamler & Johann Mitlöhner & Christian Schlötterer, 2006. "A distance-based comparison of basic voting rules," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 14(4), pages 377-386, December.
    4. John C. McCabe-Dansted & Arkadii Slinko, 2006. "Exploratory Analysis of Similarities Between Social Choice Rules," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 77-107, January.
    5. Fishburn, Peter C. & Gehrlein, William V., 1977. "Collective rationality versus distribution of power for binary social choice functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 72-91, June.
    6. Alexander Karpov, 2017. "Preference Diversity Orderings," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 753-774, July.
    7. Fuad Aleskerov & Vyacheslav Chistyakov & Valery Kalyagin, 2010. "Social threshold aggregations," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 35(4), pages 627-646, October.
    8. Christina Boll & Julian Sebastian Leppin, 2014. "Overeducation among Graduates - an Overlooked Facet of the Gender Pay Gap?: Evidence from East and West Germany," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 627, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    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. Alexander Karpov, 2020. "The likelihood of single-peaked preferences under classic and new probability distribution assumptions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 55(4), pages 629-644, December.
    2. Noriaki Okamoto & Toyotaka Sakai, 2019. "The Borda rule and the pairwise-majority-loser revisited," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 23(1), pages 75-89, June.
    3. Regenwetter, Michel & Grofman, Bernard & Marley, A. A. J., 2002. "On the model dependence of majority preference relations reconstructed from ballot or survey data," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 451-466, July.
    4. Aleskerov, Fuad & Karabekyan, Daniel & Sanver, M. Remzi & Yakuba, Vyacheslav, 2012. "On the manipulability of voting rules: The case of 4 and 5 alternatives," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 67-73.
    5. Raúl Pérez-Fernández & Bernard De Baets, 2017. "Recursive Monotonicity of the Scorix: Borda Meets Condorcet," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 793-813, July.
    6. SLINKO, Arkadii & WHITE, Shaun, 2006. "On the Manipulability of Proportional Representation," Cahiers de recherche 2006-20, Universite de Montreal, Departement de sciences economiques.
    7. Muhammad Mahajne & Shmuel Nitzan & Oscar Volij, 2015. "Level $$r$$ r consensus and stable social choice," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(4), pages 805-817, December.
    8. Chistyakov, V. & Chumakova, K., 2018. "Restoring Indifference Classes via Ordinal Numbers under the Discrete Leximin and Leximax Preference Orderings," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 39(3), pages 12-31.
    9. Fuad T. Aleskerov & Vladimir V. Pislyakov & Timur V. Vitkup, 2014. "Ranking Journals In Economics, Management And Political Sciences By The Threshold Aggregation Procedure," HSE Working papers WP BRP 73/EC/2014, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    10. Roy, Sunanda & Wu, Kuan Chuen & Chandra, Abhijit, 2014. "Uncovering the "Will of the People": Heterogeneity and Polarization within electorates," Staff General Research Papers Archive 37330, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    11. Alexander Karpov, 2017. "Preference Diversity Orderings," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 753-774, July.
    12. Macé, Antonin, 2018. "Voting with evaluations: Characterizations of evaluative voting and range voting," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 10-17.
    13. Luis G. Vargas, 2016. "Voting with Intensity of Preferences," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(04), pages 839-859, July.
    14. Abhijit Chandra & Sunanda Roy, 2013. "On removing Condorcet effects from pairwise election tallies," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(4), pages 1143-1158, April.
    15. M. Sanver & William Zwicker, 2009. "One-way monotonicity as a form of strategy-proofness," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 38(4), pages 553-574, November.
    16. I. Contreras, 2012. "Ordered Weighted Disagreement Functions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 345-361, May.
    17. Bargagliotti, Anna E. & Li, Lingfang (Ivy), 2009. "Decision Making Using Rating Systems: When Scale Meets Binary," MPRA Paper 16947, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Muhammad Mahajne, 2020. "Borda rule as an almost first-order stochastic dominance rule," Working Papers hal-02554924, HAL.
    19. F. Aleskerov & N. Meshcheryakova & S. Shvydun, 2016. "Centrality measures in networks based on nodes attributes, long-range interactions and group influence," Papers 1610.05892, arXiv.org.
    20. Ronan Congar & Vincent Merlin, 2012. "A characterization of the maximin rule in the context of voting," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 72(1), pages 131-147, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ANEC; IANC; plurality; run-off; Kemeny; Borda; scoring rules; reversal symmetry;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D70 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - General

    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:hig:wpaper:188/ec/2018. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/hsecoru.html .

    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: Shamil Abdulaev or Shamil Abdulaev (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/hsecoru.html .

    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.