×

The sensitivity of weight selection for scoring rules to profile proximity to single-peaked preferences. (English) Zbl 1132.91397

Summary: Niemi [Am Polit Sci Rev 63:48–49] proposed a simple measure of the cohesiveness of a group of \(n\) voters’ preferences that reflects the proximity of their preferences to single-peakedness. For three-candidate elections, this measure, \(k\), reduces to the minimum number of voters who rank one of the candidates as being least preferred. The current study develops closed form representations for the conditional probability, PASW\((n,IAC |k)\), that all weighted scoring rules will elect the Condorcet winner in an election, given a specified value of \(k\). Results show a very strong relationship between PASW\((n,IAC |k)\) and \(k\), such that the determination of the voting rule to be used in an election becomes significantly less critical relative to the likelihood of electing the Condorcet winner as voters in a society have more structured preferences. As voters’ preferences become more unstructured as measured by their distance from single-peakedness, it becomes much more likely that different voting rules will select different winners.

MSC:

91B12 Voting theory
Full Text: DOI

References:

[1] Black, D., The theory of committees and elections (1958), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge · Zbl 0091.15706
[2] Gehrlein, WV, Condorcet efficiency and constant scoring rules, Math Soc Sci, 2, 123-130 (1982) · Zbl 0479.90015 · doi:10.1016/0165-4896(82)90061-0
[3] Gehrlein, WV, Condorcet’s paradox and the Condorcet efficiency of voting rules, Math Jpn, 45, 173-199 (1997) · Zbl 0869.90013
[4] Gehrlein, WV, On the probability that all weighted scoring rules elect the Condorcet winner, Qual Quant, 33, 77-84 (1999) · doi:10.1023/A:1004309803136
[5] Gehrlein, WV, Obtaining representations for probabilities of voting outcomes with effectively unlimited precision integer arithmetic, Soc Choice Welf, 19, 503-512 (2002) · Zbl 1072.91530 · doi:10.1007/s003550100127
[6] Gehrlein, WV, Condorcet’s paradox and the likelihood of its occurrence: different perspectives on balanced preferences, Theory Decis, 52, 171-199 (2002) · Zbl 1030.91500 · doi:10.1023/A:1015551010381
[7] Gehrlein, WV, Proceedings of conference on logic, game theory and social choice, 282-283 (2003), Italy: Siena, Italy
[8] Gehrlein, WV, Consistency in measures of social homogeneity: a connection with proximity to single peaked preferences, Qual Quant, 38, 147-171 (2003) · doi:10.1023/B:QUQU.0000019391.85976.65
[9] Gehrlein, WV, Probabilities of election outcomes with two parameters: the relative impact of unifying and polarizing candidates, Rev Econ Des, 9, 317-336 (2006) · Zbl 1124.91322
[10] Gehrlein, WV; Fishburn, PC, Condorcet’s paradox and anonymous preference profiles, Public Choice, 26, 1-18 (1976) · doi:10.1007/BF01725789
[11] Gehrlein, WV; Lepelley, D., The Condorcet efficiency of Borda rule with anonymous voters, Math Soc Sci, 41, 39-50 (2001) · Zbl 0977.91014 · doi:10.1016/S0165-4896(00)00047-0
[12] Lepelley, D., Condorcet efficiency of positional voting rules with single-peaked preferences, Econ Des, 1, 289-299 (1995)
[13] Merlin, V.; Tataru, M.; Valognes, F., On the probability that all decision rules select the same winner, J Math Econ, 33, 83-207 (2000) · Zbl 0938.91017 · doi:10.1016/S0304-4068(99)00012-9
[14] Moulin, H., Axioms for cooperative decision (1988), Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK · Zbl 0699.90001
[15] Niemi, RG, Majority decision-making under partial unidimensionality, Am Polit Sci Rev, 63, 488-497 (1969) · doi:10.2307/1954702
[16] Saari, DG, Basic geometry of voting (1995), Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York · Zbl 0873.90006
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.