IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/sochwe/v21y2003i3p387-398.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The impartial culture maximizes the probability of majority cycles

Author

Listed:
  • Ilia Tsetlin
  • Michel Regenwetter
  • Bernard Grofman

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Ilia Tsetlin & Michel Regenwetter & Bernard Grofman, 2003. "The impartial culture maximizes the probability of majority cycles," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 21(3), pages 387-398, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:sochwe:v:21:y:2003:i:3:p:387-398
    DOI: 10.1007/s00355-003-0269-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s00355-003-0269-z
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00355-003-0269-z?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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Aki Lehtinen, 2007. "The Welfare Consequences of Strategic Voting in Two Commonly Used Parliamentary Agendas," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 63(1), pages 1-40, August.
    2. Lehtinen, Aki, 2006. "Signal extraction for simulated games with a large number of players," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 50(9), pages 2495-2507, May.
    3. Rubinstein, Ariel & Segal, Uzi, 2012. "On the likelihood of cyclic comparisons," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 147(6), pages 2483-2491.
    4. M. Braham & F. Steffen, 2007. "The Chairman’s Paradox Revisited," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 28(2), pages 231-253, February.
    5. Chatterjee, Swarnendu & Storcken, Ton, 2020. "Frequency based analysis of collective aggregation rules," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 56-66.
    6. Núñez, Matías & Pivato, Marcus, 2019. "Truth-revealing voting rules for large populations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 285-305.
    7. Lisa Sauermann, 2022. "On the probability of a Condorcet winner among a large number of alternatives," Papers 2203.13713, arXiv.org.
    8. Mor Nitzan & Shmuel Nitzan & Erel Segal-Halevi, 2018. "Flexible level-1 consensus ensuring stable social choice: analysis and algorithms," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 50(3), pages 457-479, March.
    9. Chatterjee, Swarnendu & Storcken, Ton, 2017. "Frequency Based Analysis of Voting Rules," Research Memorandum 006, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    10. Nicholas R. Miller, 2019. "Reflections on Arrow’s theorem and voting rules," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 179(1), pages 113-124, April.
    11. Aki Lehtinen, 2007. "The Borda rule is also intended for dishonest men," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 133(1), pages 73-90, October.
    12. Sara Wolk & Jameson Quinn & Marcus Ogren, 2023. "STAR Voting, equality of voice, and voter satisfaction: considerations for voting method reform," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 310-334, September.
    13. Salvatore Barbaro, 2024. "Electoral Methods and Political Polarization," Working Papers 2411, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    14. Dougherty, Keith L. & Heckelman, Jac C., 2020. "The probability of violating Arrow’s conditions," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    15. James Green-Armytage & T. Tideman & Rafael Cosman, 2016. "Statistical evaluation of voting rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(1), pages 183-212, January.
    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. 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.
    18. Ortona Guido, 2016. "A commonsense assessment of Arrow’s theorem," Journal of Heterodox Economics, Sciendo, vol. 3(1), pages 54-62, June.
    19. Salvatore Barbaro & Nils D. Steiner, 2022. "Majority principle and indeterminacy in German elections," Working Papers 2202, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.

    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:spr:sochwe:v:21:y:2003:i:3:p:387-398. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.