IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/matsoc/v60y2010i1p15-23.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Strategy-proofness and weighted voting

Author

Listed:
  • Campbell, Donald E.
  • Kelly, Jerry S.

Abstract

A strict social welfare function (SSWF) that always yields an asymmetric binary relation with a single maximal alternative induces a social choice rule on its domain. It is known that if the induced rule is strategy-proof then it can also be generated by a SSWF satisfying non-reversal. This paper proves that a SSWF satisfying anonymity and IIAsatisfies non-reversal if and only if it is a weighted voting rule. If there are less than six voters then a SSWF satisfying neutrality and IIA satisfies non-reversal if and only if it is a weighted voting rule, but this equivalence does not hold for more than five voters.

Suggested Citation

  • Campbell, Donald E. & Kelly, Jerry S., 2010. "Strategy-proofness and weighted voting," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 15-23, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:matsoc:v:60:y:2010:i:1:p:15-23
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165-4896(10)00005-3
    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. Asan, Goksel & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2006. "Maskin monotonic aggregation rules," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 179-183, May.
    2. Ron Lavi & Ahuva Mu’alem & Noam Nisan, 2009. "Two simplified proofs for Roberts’ theorem," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 32(3), pages 407-423, March.
    3. Barberà, Salvador & Berga, Dolors & Moreno, Bernardo, 2010. "Individual versus group strategy-proofness: When do they coincide?," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(5), pages 1648-1674, September.
    4. Remzi Sanver, M., 2006. "Nash implementation of the majority rule," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 369-372, June.
    5. Kfir Eliaz, 2004. "Social aggregators," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 22(2), pages 317-330, April.
    6. Brams, Steven J. & Fishburn, Peter C., 2002. "Voting procedures," 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 1, chapter 4, pages 173-236, Elsevier.
    7. Michel Breton & Vera Zaporozhets, 2009. "On the equivalence of coalitional and individual strategy-proofness properties," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 33(2), pages 287-309, August.
    8. Donald E. Campbell & Jerry S. Kelly, 2003. "A strategy-proofness characterization of majority rule," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 22(3), pages 557-568, October.
    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. Campbell, Donald E. & Graver, Jack & Kelly, Jerry S., 2012. "There are more strategy-proof procedures than you think," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 263-265.
    2. Brandt, Felix & Geist, Christian & Peters, Dominik, 2017. "Optimal bounds for the no-show paradox via SAT solving," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 18-27.
    3. Alcantud, José Carlos R., 2019. "Yet another characterization of the majority rule," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 52-55.

    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. Hagen, Martin, 2023. "Collusion-proof mechanisms for multi-unit procurement," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 281-298.
    2. Campbell, Donald E. & Kelly, Jerry S., 2006. "Social welfare functions generating social choice rules that are invulnerable to manipulation," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 81-89, January.
    3. Salvador Barberà & Dolors Berga & Bernardo Moreno, 2020. "Arrow on domain conditions: a fruitful road to travel," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 54(2), pages 237-258, March.
    4. M. Sanver, 2009. "Characterizations of majoritarianism: a unified approach," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 33(1), pages 159-171, June.
    5. Bonifacio Llamazares, 2013. "On the structure of voting systems between two alternatives," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 17(3), pages 239-248, September.
    6. Kumar, Ujjwal & Roy, Souvik & Sen, Arunava & Yadav, Sonal & Zeng, Huaxia, 2021. "Local global equivalence for unanimous social choice functions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 299-308.
    7. Barberà, Salvador & Berga, Dolors & Moreno, Bernardo, 2017. "Immunity to credible deviations from the truth," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 129-140.
    8. Julia Grundner, 2018. "Governance in Africa: Convergence or Divergence?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 38(1), pages 71-88.
    9. John Weymark, 2011. "A unified approach to strategy-proofness for single-peaked preferences," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 2(4), pages 529-550, December.
    10. Joseph Root & David S. Ahn, 2020. "Incentives and Efficiency in Constrained Allocation Mechanisms," Papers 2006.06776, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2023.
    11. Bhaskara Rao, K.P.S. & Basile, Achille & Rao, Surekha, 2021. "Preference reversal and strategy-proofness with more than three alternatives," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    12. Patrick Harless, 2015. "Reaching consensus: solidarity and strategic properties in binary social choice," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(1), pages 97-121, June.
    13. Susumu Cato, 2022. "Stable preference aggregation with infinite population," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 59(2), pages 287-304, August.
    14. Kivinen, Steven, 2023. "On the manipulability of equitable voting rules," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 286-302.
    15. Rao, K.P.S. Bhaskara & Basile, Achille & Rao, Surekha, 2021. "On the relation between preference reversal and strategy-proofness," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    16. Susumu Cato, 2011. "Pareto principles, positive responsiveness, and majority decisions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(4), pages 503-518, October.
    17. Merrill, Lauren Nicole, 2011. "Parity dependence of a majority rule characterization on the Condorcet domain," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 112(3), pages 259-261, September.
    18. William Thomson, 2016. "Non-bossiness," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(3), pages 665-696, October.
    19. Shuhei Morimoto & Shigehiro Serizawa & Stephen Ching, 2013. "A characterization of the uniform rule with several commodities and agents," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(3), pages 871-911, March.
    20. Salvador Barberà, 2010. "Strategy-proof social choice," Working Papers 420, Barcelona School of Economics.

    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:matsoc:v:60:y:2010:i:1:p:15-23. 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/inca/505565 .

    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.