A Set-Theoretical Comparison of C2 Social Choice Correspondences
Given the choice sets produced by a pair of Condorcet social choice correspondences, the following interesting questions arise. Does one of these sets always contain the other? If not, do they always intersect or, on the contrary, can they have an empty intersection? Laffond, Laslier, and Le Breton (1995) answer these questions for Condorcet social choice correspondences based exclusively on the simple majority relation, called C1 choice correspondences by Fishburn(1977). In the present paper, we conduct the same task for five Condorcet choice correspondences that require the size of the majorities to operate. These are called C2. The first two are the Kemeny and the Simpson-Kramer minmax rules. The other three are closely related to the solution of the plurality version of an electoral competition game involving two political parties. They select the set of weakly undominated strategies, a new minimal covering set and the support of the unique Nash equilibrium in mixed strategies of the electoral game. We also study the inclusionédisjunction relations between these five C2 choice correspondences and three of type C1, namely the top cycle, the uncovered set and the usual minimal covering set. The comparison is also done with the Borda rule.
|Date of creation:||1996|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Pavillon J.A. De Sève, Québec, Québec, G1K 7P4|
Phone: (418) 656-5122
Fax: (418) 656-2707
Web page: http://www.ecn.ulaval.ca
More information through EDIRC
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:lvl:laeccr:9624. 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: (Manuel Paradis)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.