IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/matsoc/v90y2017icp9-17.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Revisiting the connection between the no-show paradox and monotonicity

Author

Listed:
  • Núñez, Matías
  • Sanver, M. Remzi

Abstract

We investigate the relation between monotonicity and the no-show paradox in voting rules. Although the literature has established their logical independence, we show, by presenting logical dependency results, that the two conditions are closer than a general logical independency result would suggest. Our analysis is made both under variable and fixed-size electorates.

Suggested Citation

  • Núñez, Matías & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2017. "Revisiting the connection between the no-show paradox and monotonicity," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 9-17.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:matsoc:v:90:y:2017:i:c:p:9-17
    DOI: 10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2017.02.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016548961730046X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2017.02.003?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 look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jeffrey Richelson, 1980. "Running off empty: Run-off point systems," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 457-468, January.
    2. M. Sanver & William Zwicker, 2009. "One-way monotonicity as a form of strategy-proofness," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 38(4), pages 553-574, November.
    3. Moulin,Hervi, 1991. "Axioms of Cooperative Decision Making," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521424585, January.
    4. Joaqui´n Pérez, 2001. "The Strong No Show Paradoxes are a common flaw in Condorcet voting correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 18(3), pages 601-616.
    5. Peter Fishburn & Steven Brams, 1984. "Manipulability of voting by sincere truncation of preferences," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 397-410, January.
    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. Nicolas Houy, 2009. "A characterization of majority voting rules with quorums," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 67(3), pages 295-301, September.
    8. Smith, John H, 1973. "Aggregation of Preferences with Variable Electorate," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(6), pages 1027-1041, November.
    9. Young, H. P., 1974. "An axiomatization of Borda's rule," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 43-52, September.
    10. Moulin, Herve, 1988. "Condorcet's principle implies the no show paradox," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 53-64, June.
    11. Jerry S. Kelly & Donald E. Campbell, 2002. "Non-monotonicity does not imply the no-show paradox," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 19(3), pages 513-515.
    12. José Jimeno & Joaquín Pérez & Estefanía García, 2009. "An extension of the Moulin No Show Paradox for voting correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 33(3), pages 343-359, 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. Dominique Lepelley & Hatem Smaoui, 2019. "Comparing Two Ways for Eliminating Candidates in Three-Alternative Elections Using Sequential Scoring Rules," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 787-804, August.
    2. Basile, Achille & Rao, Surekha & Bhaskara Rao, K.P.S., 2022. "Anonymous, non-manipulable binary social choice," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 138-149.
    3. Hannu Nurmi, 2020. "The Incidence of Some Voting Paradoxes Under Domain Restrictions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(6), pages 1107-1120, December.
    4. Can, Burak & Ergin, Emre & Pourpouneh, Mohsen, 2017. "Condorcet versus participation criterion in social welfare rules," Research Memorandum 020, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    5. D. Marc Kilgour & Jean-Charles Grégoire & Angèle M. Foley, 2020. "The prevalence and consequences of ballot truncation in ranked-choice elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 184(1), pages 197-218, July.
    6. Abhinaba Lahiri & Anup Pramanik, 2020. "On strategy-proof social choice between two alternatives," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 54(4), pages 581-607, April.

    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. Conal Duddy, 2014. "Condorcet’s principle and the strong no-show paradoxes," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(2), pages 275-285, August.
    2. Brandl, Florian & Brandt, Felix & Hofbauer, Johannes, 2019. "Welfare maximization entices participation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 308-314.
    3. 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.
    4. Eric Kamwa & Issofa Moyouwou, 2019. "Susceptibility to Manipulation by Sincere Truncation : the Case of Scoring Rules and Scoring Runoff Systems," Working Papers hal-02185965, HAL.
    5. Felix Brandt, 2015. "Set-monotonicity implies Kelly-strategyproofness," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(4), pages 793-804, December.
    6. Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit, 2023. "Split Cycle: a new Condorcet-consistent voting method independent of clones and immune to spoilers," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 197(1), pages 1-62, October.
    7. Eric Kamwa & Issofa Moyouwou, 2021. "Susceptibility to Manipulation by Sincere Truncation: The Case of Scoring Rules and Scoring Runoff Systems," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Mostapha Diss & Vincent Merlin (ed.), Evaluating Voting Systems with Probability Models, pages 275-295, Springer.
    8. 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.
    9. Holliday, Wesley H., 2024. "An impossibility theorem concerning positive involvement in voting," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 236(C).
    10. Antonin Macé, 2017. "Voting with evaluations: characterizations of evaluative voting and range voting," Working Papers halshs-01222200, HAL.
    11. Brandl, Florian & Peters, Dominik, 2022. "Approval voting under dichotomous preferences: A catalogue of characterizations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    12. Joaquín Pérez & José L. Jimeno & Estefanía García, 2015. "No Show Paradox and the Golden Number in Generalized Condorcet Voting Methods," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 497-513, May.
    13. Hannu Nurmi & Hannu Salonen, 2008. "More Borda Count Variations for Project Assesment," Czech Economic Review, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, vol. 2(2), pages 109-122, September.
    14. Guillaume Chèze, 2017. "Topological aggregation, the twin paradox and the No Show paradox," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(4), pages 707-715, April.
    15. Stefano Vannucci, 2006. "The Proportional Lottery Protocol is Strongly Participatory and VNM-Strategy-Proof," Department of Economics University of Siena 490, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    16. Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit, 2020. "Split Cycle: A New Condorcet Consistent Voting Method Independent of Clones and Immune to Spoilers," Papers 2004.02350, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2023.
    17. Hannu Nurmi, 2004. "Monotonicity and its Cognates in the Theory of Choice," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 121(1), pages 25-49, October.
    18. Jimeno, José L. & García, Estefanía & Pérez, Joaquín, 2011. "Extensions of the Young and Levenglick result about the inconsistency of Condorcet voting correspondences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 25-27, July.
    19. Macé, Antonin, 2018. "Voting with evaluations: Characterizations of evaluative voting and range voting," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 10-17.
    20. M. Sanver & William Zwicker, 2009. "One-way monotonicity as a form of strategy-proofness," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 38(4), pages 553-574, November.

    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:90:y:2017:i:c:p:9-17. 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.