IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/mateco/v32y1999i4p429-456.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The geometry of Black's single peakedness and related conditions

Author

Listed:
  • Saari, Donald G.
  • Valognes, Fabrice

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Saari, Donald G. & Valognes, Fabrice, 1999. "The geometry of Black's single peakedness and related conditions," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 429-456, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:mateco:v:32:y:1999:i:4:p:429-456
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304-4068(98)00062-7
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Satterthwaite, Mark Allen, 1975. "Strategy-proofness and Arrow's conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 187-217, April.
    2. Thomson, William, 1993. "The replacement principle in public good economies with single-peaked preferences," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 31-36.
    3. Lepelley, Dominique, 1993. "On the probability of electing the Condorcet," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 105-116, February.
    4. Moulin, Herve, 1988. "Condorcet's principle implies the no show paradox," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 53-64, June.
    5. Merlin, V. & Tataru, M. & Valognes, F., 2000. "On the probability that all decision rules select the same winner," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 183-207, March.
    6. Gehrlein, William V., 1981. "The expected probability of Condorcet's paradox," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 33-37.
    7. Gibbard, Allan, 1973. "Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(4), pages 587-601, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bernardo Moreno & M. Socorro Puy, 2005. "The scoring rules in an endogenous election," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 25(1), pages 115-125, October.
    2. Baharad, Eyal & Danziger, Leif, 2018. "Voting in Hiring Committees: Which "Almost" Rule Is Optimal?," GLO Discussion Paper Series 185, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    3. Perote-Pena, Juan & Piggins, Ashley, 2005. "Pareto efficiency with spatial rights," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 265-283, April.
    4. Eric Kamwa, 2019. "On the Likelihood of the Borda Effect: The Overall Probabilities for General Weighted Scoring Rules and Scoring Runoff Rules," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 519-541, June.
    5. Eyal Baharad & Leif Danziger, 2018. "Voting in Hiring Committees: Which “Almost” Rule is Optimal?," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 129-151, February.
    6. Andrew C. Eggers, 2021. "A diagram for analyzing ordinal voting systems," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(1), pages 143-171, January.
    7. Eric Kamwa & Fabrice Valognes, 2017. "Scoring Rules and Preference Restrictions: The Strong Borda Paradox Revisited," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 127(3), pages 375-395.
    8. Eyal Baharad & Leif Danziger, 2018. "Voting in Hiring Committees: Which "Almost" Rule is Optimal?," CESifo Working Paper Series 6851, CESifo.
    9. Baharad, Eyal & Danziger, Leif, 2018. "Voting in Hiring Committees: Which "Almost" Rule Is Optimal?," IZA Discussion Papers 11287, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    10. William Gehrlein & Dominique Lepelley, 2010. "On the probability of observing Borda’s paradox," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 35(1), pages 1-23, June.
    11. Eric Kamwa, 2018. "On the Likelihood of the Borda Effect: The Overall Probabilities for General Weighted Scoring Rules and Scoring Runoff Rules," Working Papers hal-01786590, HAL.
    12. Salvador Barberà & Dolors Berga & Bernardo Moreno, 2012. "Domains, ranges and strategy-proofness: the case of single-dipped preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 39(2), pages 335-352, July.

    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. M. Sanver & William Zwicker, 2012. "Monotonicity properties and their adaptation to irresolute social choice rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 39(2), pages 371-398, July.
    2. Chatterji, Shurojit & Zeng, Huaxia, 2023. "A taxonomy of non-dictatorial unidimensional domains," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 228-269.
    3. Bossert, Walter & Sprumont, Yves, 2014. "Strategy-proof preference aggregation: Possibilities and characterizations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 109-126.
    4. Conal Duddy, 2014. "Condorcet’s principle and the strong no-show paradoxes," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(2), pages 275-285, August.
    5. Yasunori Okumura, 2019. "What proportion of sincere voters guarantees efficiency?," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 53(2), pages 299-311, August.
    6. Harless, Patrick, 2015. "Solidarity with respect to small changes in preferences in public good economies with single-peaked preferences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 81-86.
    7. Stensholt, Eivind, 2020. "Anomalies of Instant Runoff Voting," Discussion Papers 2020/6, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Business and Management Science.
    8. Truchon, Michel, 1999. "La démocratie : oui, mais laquelle?," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 75(1), pages 189-214, mars-juin.
    9. Bochet, Olivier & Tumennasan, Norovsambuu, 2020. "Dominance of truthtelling and the lattice structure of Nash equilibria," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    10. Fujun Hou, 2024. "A new social welfare function with a number of desirable properties," Papers 2403.16373, arXiv.org.
    11. Bandhu, Sarvesh & Mondal, Bishwajyoti & Pramanik, Anup, 2022. "Strategy-proofness of the unanimity with status-quo rule over restricted domains," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 210(C).
    12. Gordon, Sidartha, 2007. "Public decisions: Solidarity and the status quo," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 225-241, November.
    13. Dolors Berga & Bernardo Moreno & Antonio Nicolò, 2023. "Undominated rules with three alternatives in an almost unrestricted domain," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 60(1), pages 65-74, January.
    14. Lirong Xia, 2021. "Semi-Random Impossibilities of Condorcet Criterion," Papers 2107.06435, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2022.
    15. BOSSERT, Walter & SPRUMONT, Yves, 2012. "Strategy-proof Preference Aggregation," Cahiers de recherche 2012-10, Universite de Montreal, Departement de sciences economiques.
    16. 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.
    17. Hiroki Saitoh, 2022. "Characterization of tie-breaking plurality rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 59(1), pages 139-173, July.
    18. Stensholt, Eivind, 2019. "MMP-elections and the assembly size," Discussion Papers 2019/15, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Business and Management Science.
    19. Eivind Stensholt, 2013. "What shall we do with the cyclic profile?," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(1), pages 229-262, January.
    20. Maksim Gladyshev, 2019. "Vulnerability Of Voting Paradoxes As A Criteria For Voting Procedure Selection," HSE Working papers WP BRP 70/PS/2019, National Research University Higher School of Economics.

    More about this item

    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:eee:mateco:v:32:y:1999:i:4:p:429-456. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jmateco .

    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.