IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/matsoc/v66y2013i2p140-151.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Connecting pairwise and positional election outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • Saari, Donald G.
  • McIntee, Tomas J.

Abstract

General conclusions relating pairwise tallies with positional (e.g., plurality, antiplurality (“vote-for-two”)) election outcomes were previously known only for the Borda Count. While it has been known since the eighteenth century that the Borda and Condorcet winners need not agree, it had not been known, for instance, in which settings the Condorcet and plurality winners can disagree, or must agree. Results of this type are developed here for all three-alternative positional rules. These relationships are based on an easily used method that connects pairwise tallies with admissible positional outcomes; e.g., a special case provides the first necessary and sufficient conditions ensuring that the Condorcet winner is the plurality winner; another case identifies when there must be a profile whereby each candidate is the “winner” with some positional rule.

Suggested Citation

  • Saari, Donald G. & McIntee, Tomas J., 2013. "Connecting pairwise and positional election outcomes," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 140-151.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:matsoc:v:66:y:2013:i:2:p:140-151
    DOI: 10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2013.02.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165489613000188
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2013.02.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Saari,Donald G., 2008. "Disposing Dictators, Demystifying Voting Paradoxes," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521731607, September.
    2. Saari, Donald G., 1999. "Explaining All Three-Alternative Voting Outcomes," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 313-355, August.
    3. Saari, Donald G., 1989. "A dictionary for voting paradoxes," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 443-475, August.
    4. Sieberg, Katri & McDonald, Michael D., 2011. "Probability and Plausibility of Cycles in Three-party Systems: A Mathematical Formulation and Application," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 681-692, July.
    5. Donald Saari, 2010. "Systematic analysis of multiple voting rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 34(2), pages 217-247, February.
    6. Saari,Donald G., 2008. "Disposing Dictators, Demystifying Voting Paradoxes," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521516051, September.
    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. Raúl Pérez-Fernández & Bernard De Baets, 2017. "Recursive Monotonicity of the Scorix: Borda Meets Condorcet," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 793-813, July.
    2. Dany R. DOMBOU T., 2017. "How Borda voting rule can respect Arrow IIA and avoid cloning manipulation," Journal of Economics Bibliography, KSP Journals, vol. 4(3), pages 234-243, September.
    3. McIntee, Tomas J. & Saari, Donald G., 2017. "Likelihood of voting outcomes with generalized IAC probabilities," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-10.
    4. D. Marc Kilgour & Jean-Charles Grégoire & Angèle M. Foley, 2022. "Weighted scoring elections: is Borda best?," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 58(2), pages 365-391, February.
    5. Mostapha Diss & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2018. "Another perspective on Borda’s paradox," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(1), pages 99-121, January.

    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. Mostapha Diss & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2018. "Another perspective on Borda’s paradox," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(1), pages 99-121, January.
    2. Noriaki Okamoto & Toyotaka Sakai, 2019. "The Borda rule and the pairwise-majority-loser revisited," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 23(1), pages 75-89, June.
    3. Muhammad Mahajne & Shmuel Nitzan & Oscar Volij, 2013. "LEVEL r CONSENSUS AND STABLE SOCIAL CHOICE," Working Papers 1305, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Department of Economics.
    4. Donald Saari, 2010. "Systematic analysis of multiple voting rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 34(2), pages 217-247, February.
    5. Lee Gibson & Robert Powers, 2012. "An extension of McGarvey’s theorem from the perspective of the plurality collective choice mechanism," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 38(1), pages 101-108, January.
    6. Saari, Donald G., 2014. "Unifying voting theory from Nakamura’s to Greenberg’s theorems," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 1-11.
    7. McIntee, Tomas J. & Saari, Donald G., 2017. "Likelihood of voting outcomes with generalized IAC probabilities," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-10.
    8. Wu-Hsiung Huang, 2014. "Singularity and Arrow’s paradox," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(3), pages 671-706, March.
    9. Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit, 2020. "Arrow’s decisive coalitions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 54(2), pages 463-505, March.
    10. Muhammad Mahajne & Shmuel Nitzan & Oscar Volij, 2015. "Level $$r$$ r consensus and stable social choice," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(4), pages 805-817, December.
    11. Thomas Ratliff & Donald Saari, 2014. "Complexities of electing diverse committees," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 43(1), pages 55-71, June.
    12. Conal Duddy & Ashley Piggins & William Zwicker, 2016. "Aggregation of binary evaluations: a Borda-like approach," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(2), pages 301-333, February.
    13. Shmuel Nitzan, 2010. "Demystifying the ‘metric approach to social compromise with the unanimity criterion’," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 35(1), pages 25-28, June.
    14. Pierre Dehez & Victor Ginsburgh, 2020. "Approval voting and Shapley ranking," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 184(3), pages 415-428, September.
    15. Peter Emerson, 2013. "The original Borda count and partial voting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(2), pages 353-358, February.
    16. Donald G. Saari, 2014. "A New Way to Analyze Paired Comparison Rules," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 39(3), pages 647-655, August.
    17. Hulkower, Neal D., 2021. "Contre-degustation Olympiades du Vin According to Borda," Working Papers 321848, American Association of Wine Economists.
    18. Vincent Merlin & İpek Özkal Sanver & M. Remzi Sanver, 2019. "Compromise Rules Revisited," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 63-78, February.
    19. Donald Saari, 2010. "Peter Emerson (ed): Designing an all-inclusive democracy," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 35(2), pages 331-335, July.
    20. Donald G. Saari, 2023. "Selecting a voting method: the case for the Borda count," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 357-366, September.

    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:matsoc:v:66:y:2013:i:2:p:140-151. 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.