×

Borda’s paradox with weighted scoring rules. (English) Zbl 1278.91051

Summary: Representations are obtained for the probabilities that a strict Borda paradox and a strong Borda paradox are observed for large electorates with three candidates under the standard assumptions of impartial culture and impartial anonymous culture. These representations are obtained for general weighted scoring rules (WSRs), and the probabilities are found to be maximized for voting rules like plurality rule and negative plurality rule. It is found that these paradox probabilities are not reduced for every scoring rule with the introduction of some degree of dependence among voters’ preferences with IAC. It is concluded that actual observances of a strict Borda paradox should be extremely rare, and that while observances of a strong Borda paradox should also be rare, they might occasionally be witnessed.

MSC:

91B14 Social choice
91B12 Voting theory
91B10 Group preferences
Full Text: DOI

References:

[1] Berg S (1985) Paradox of voting under an urn model: the effect of homogeneity. Public Choice 47: 377–387 · doi:10.1007/BF00127533
[2] Bezembinder T (1996) The plurality majority converse under single peakedness. Soc Choice Welf 13: 365–380 · Zbl 0851.90004 · doi:10.1007/BF00179239
[3] Cervone D, Gehrlein WV, Zwicker W (2005) Which scoring rule maximizes Condorcet efficiency under IAC?. Theory Decis 58: 145–185 · Zbl 1126.91017 · doi:10.1007/s11238-005-6594-1
[4] Colman AM, Poutney I (1978) Borda’s voting paradox: theoretical likelihood and electoral occurrences. Behav Sci 23: 15–20 · doi:10.1002/bs.3830230103
[5] de Borda J (1784) A paper on elections by ballot. In: Sommerlad F, McLean I (eds) The political theory of Condorcet. Working paper (trans: 1989). University of Oxford, Oxford, pp 122–129
[6] de Condorcet M (1785) An essay on the application of probability theory to plurality decision making: elections. In: Sommerlad F, McLean I (eds) The political theory of Condorcet. Working paper (trans: 1989). University of Oxford, Oxford, pp 81–89
[7] Gehrlein WV (1979) A representation for quadrivariate normal positive orthant probabilities. Commun Stat 8: 349–358 · Zbl 0411.62030
[8] Gehrlein WV (2004) The effectiveness of weighted scoring rules when pairwise majority rule cycles exist. Math Soc Sci 47: 69–85 · Zbl 1069.91024 · doi:10.1016/S0165-4896(03)00080-5
[9] Gehrlein WV (2006) Condorcet’s paradox. Springer Publishing, Berlin · Zbl 1122.91027
[10] Gehrlein WV, Fishburn PC (1976) Condorcet’s paradox and anonymous preference profiles. Public Choice 26: 1–18 · doi:10.1007/BF01725789
[11] Gehrlein WV, Fishburn PC (1978) Coincidence probabilities for simple majority and positional voting rules. Soc Sci Res 7: 272–283 · doi:10.1016/0049-089X(78)90014-5
[12] Gehrlein WV, Lepelley D (2010a) On the probability of observing Borda’s Paradox. Soc Choice Welf 35: 1–23 · Zbl 1230.91037 · doi:10.1007/s00355-009-0415-3
[13] Gehrlein WV, Lepelley D (2010b) The value of research based on simple assumptions about voters’ preferences. Presented at voting power in practice workshop, Chateau du Baffy, Normandy, France, August 2010
[14] Guilbaud GT (1952) Les théories de l’intérêt général et le problème logique de l’agrégation. Econ Appl 5: 501–584
[15] Johnson NL, Kotz S (1972) Distributions in statistics: continuous multivariate distributions. Wiley, New York · Zbl 0248.62021
[16] Niou EMS (2001) Strategic voting under plurality and runoff rules. J Theor Politics 13: 209–227 · doi:10.1177/0951692801013002004
[17] Nurmi H (1999) Voting Paradoxes and how to deal with them. Springer, Berlin · Zbl 0943.91030
[18] Riker WH (1982) Liberalism against populism: a confrontation between the theory of democracy and the theory of social choice. Freeman Press, New York
[19] Sommerville DMY (1958) An introduction to the geometry of n dimensions. Dover Publishing, New York · Zbl 0086.35804
[20] Tataru M, Merlin V (1997) On the relationship of the Condorcet winner and positional voting rules. Math Soc Sci 34: 81–90 · Zbl 0915.90007 · doi:10.1016/S0165-4896(97)00005-X
[21] Taylor AD (1997) A glimpse of impossibility: Kenneth Arrow’s impossibility theory and voting. Perspect Political Sci 26: 23–26 · doi:10.1080/10457099709600660
[22] Van Newenhizen J (1992) The Borda method is most likely to respect the Condorcet principle. Econ Theory 2: 69–83 · Zbl 0810.90023 · doi:10.1007/BF01213253
[23] Weber RJ (1978) Comparison of voting systems. Yale University, unpublished manuscript
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.