IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mib/wpaper/363.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An investigation of weak-veto rules in preference aggregation

Author

Listed:
  • Stergios, Athanasoglou

Abstract

A new class of preference-aggregation rules is proposed, weak-veto rules. Weak-veto rules are applicable in settings characterized by strong pre-existing views on the desirability of different outcomes, whose recommendations should be modified only in the presence of strenuous opposition. They are characterized by strategy-proofness, strong efficiency, and unanimity-basedness. When non-manipulability requirements are strengthened to K-strategy-proofness, the positive results are weakened, except for the case of three alternatives and a sub-class of weak-veto rules based on Kemeny distances. This demonstrates the compatibility of stronger efficiency and non-manipulability properties for the three-alternative model.

Suggested Citation

  • Stergios, Athanasoglou, 2017. "An investigation of weak-veto rules in preference aggregation," Working Papers 363, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised 18 Feb 2017.
    • Handle: RePEc:mib:wpaper:363
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://repec.dems.unimib.it/repec/pdf/mibwpaper363.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Muto, Nozomu & Sato, Shin, 2016. "Bounded response of aggregated preferences," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 1-15.
    2. Jean Lainé & Ali Ozkes & Remzi Sanver, 2016. "Hyper-stable social welfare functions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(1), pages 157-182, January.
    3. Barberà, Salvador, 2011. "Chapter Twenty-Five - Strategyproof Social Choice," Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, in: K. J. Arrow & A. K. Sen & K. Suzumura (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 25, pages 731-831, Elsevier.
    4. H. Moulin, 1980. "On strategy-proofness and single peakedness," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 437-455, January.
    5. Grandmont, Jean-Michel, 1978. "Intermediate Preferences and the Majority Rule," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(2), pages 317-330, March.
    6. Shin Sato, 2015. "Bounded response and the equivalence of nonmanipulability and independence of irrelevant alternatives," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 44(1), pages 133-149, January.
    7. Athanasoglou, Stergios, 2016. "Strategyproof and efficient preference aggregation with Kemeny-based criteria," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 156-167.
    8. Harless, Patrick, 2016. "Solidarity in preference aggregation: Improving on a status quo," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 73-87.
    9. Bossert, Walter & Sprumont, Yves, 2014. "Strategy-proof preference aggregation: Possibilities and characterizations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 109-126.
    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. Stergios Athanasoglou & Somouaoga Bonkoungou & Lars Ehlers, 2023. "Strategy-proof preference aggregation and the anonymity-neutrality tradeoff," Working Papers 519, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics.
    2. Gilbert Laffond & Jean Lainé & M. Remzi Sanver, 2020. "Metrizable preferences over preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 55(1), pages 177-191, June.
    3. Burak Can & Peter Csoka & Emre Ergin, 2017. "How to choose a non-manipulable delegation?," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 1713, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    4. Athanasoglou, Stergios, 2019. "Solidarity and efficiency in preference aggregation: A tale of two rules," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 126-140.
    5. Athanasoglou, Stergios, 2016. "Strategyproof and efficient preference aggregation with Kemeny-based criteria," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 156-167.
    6. Can, Burak & Csóka, Péter & Ergin, Emre, 2017. "How to choose a delegation for a peace conference?," Research Memorandum 008, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    7. Stergios, Athanasoglou, 2017. "Solidarity and efficiency in preference aggregation: a tale of two rules," Working Papers 390, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Nov 2018.
    8. Csóka, Péter & Kondor, Gábor, 2019. "Delegációk igazságos kiválasztása társadalmi választások elméletével [Choosing a fair delegation by social choice theory]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(7), pages 771-787.
    9. Bettina Klaus & Panos Protopapas, 2020. "Solidarity for public goods under single-peaked preferences: characterizing target set correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 55(3), pages 405-430, October.
    10. Burak Can & Péter Csóka & Emre Ergin, 2021. "How to choose a fair delegation?," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 72(4), pages 1339-1373, November.
    11. Ernesto Savaglio & Stefano Vannucci, 2014. "Strategy-proofness and single-peackedness in bounded distributive lattices," Papers 1406.5120, arXiv.org.
    12. Mihir Bhattacharya, 2019. "Constitutionally consistent voting rules over single-peaked domains," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 52(2), pages 225-246, February.
    13. Roy, Souvik & Storcken, Ton, 2019. "A characterization of possibility domains in strategic voting," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 46-55.
    14. Nozomu Muto & Shin Sato, 2016. "A decomposition of strategy-proofness," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(2), pages 277-294, August.
    15. Barberà, Salvador & Moreno, Bernardo, 2011. "Top monotonicity: A common root for single peakedness, single crossing and the median voter result," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 345-359.
    16. Gabrielle Demange, 2012. "Majority relation and median representative ordering," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 3(1), pages 95-109, March.
    17. Bossert, Walter & Sprumont, Yves, 2014. "Strategy-proof preference aggregation: Possibilities and characterizations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 109-126.
    18. Haeringer, Guillaume & Hałaburda, Hanna, 2016. "Monotone strategyproofness," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 68-77.
    19. Chatterji, Shurojit & Roy, Souvik & Sadhukhan, Soumyarup & Sen, Arunava & Zeng, Huaxia, 2022. "Probabilistic fixed ballot rules and hybrid domains," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    20. Bandhu, Sarvesh & Lahiri, Abhinaba & Pramanik, Anup, 2020. "A characterization of status quo rules in the binary social choice model," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    social choice; preference aggregation; strategy-proofness; weak-veto rules;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
    • C70 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - General

    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:mib:wpaper:363. 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: Matteo Pelagatti (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dpmibit.html .

    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.