IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/sochwe/v31y2008i1p151-162.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scoring rules on dichotomous preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Marc Vorsatz

Abstract

In this paper, we study individual incentives to report preferences truthfully for the special case when individuals have dichotomous preferences on the set of alternatives and preferences are aggregated in form of scoring rules. In particular, we show that (a) the Borda Count coincides with Approval Voting on the dichotomous preference domain, (b) the Borda Count is the only strategy-proof scoring rule on the dichotomous preference domain, and (c) if at least three individuals participate in the election, then the dichotomous preference domain is the unique maximal rich domain under which the Borda Count is strategy-proof.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Marc Vorsatz, 2008. "Scoring rules on dichotomous preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(1), pages 151-162, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:sochwe:v:31:y:2008:i:1:p:151-162
    DOI: 10.1007/s00355-007-0270-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s00355-007-0270-z
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00355-007-0270-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 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. Michel Regenwetter & Ilia Tsetlin, 2004. "Approval voting and positional voting methods: Inference, relationship, examples," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 22(3), pages 539-566, June.
    2. Berga, Dolors & Serizawa, Shigehiro, 2000. "Maximal Domain for Strategy-Proof Rules with One Public Good," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 39-61, January.
    3. Bogomolnaia, Anna & Moulin, Herve & Stong, Richard, 2005. "Collective choice under dichotomous preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 122(2), pages 165-184, June.
    4. Barbera, Salvador & Sonnenschein, Hugo & Zhou, Lin, 1991. "Voting by Committees," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(3), pages 595-609, May.
    5. Michael Dummett, 1998. "The Borda count and agenda manipulation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 15(2), pages 289-296.
    6. Steven Brams & Peter Fishburn & Samuel Merrill, 1988. "The responsiveness of approval voting: Comments on Saari and Van Newenhizen," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 59(2), pages 121-131, November.
    7. David A. Smith, 1999. "Manipulability measures of common social choice functions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 16(4), pages 639-661.
    8. Ching, Stephen & Serizawa, Shigehiro, 1998. "A Maximal Domain for the Existence of Strategy-Proof Rules," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 78(1), pages 157-166, January.
    9. Martin Barbie & Clemens Puppe & Attila Tasnádi, 2006. "Non-manipulable domains for the Borda count," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 27(2), pages 411-430, January.
    10. Saari, Donald G, 1990. "Susceptibility to Manipulation," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 64(1), pages 21-41, January.
    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. Kentaro Hatsumi & Dolors Berga & Shigehiro Serizawa, 2014. "A maximal domain for strategy-proof and no-vetoer rules in the multi-object choice model," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 43(1), pages 153-168, February.
    2. Marc Vorsatz, 2007. "Approval Voting on Dichotomous Preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 28(1), pages 127-141, January.
    3. Federica Ceron & Stéphane Gonzalez, 2019. "A characterization of Approval Voting without the approval balloting assumption," Working Papers halshs-02440615, HAL.
    4. Brandl, Florian & Peters, Dominik, 2022. "Approval voting under dichotomous preferences: A catalogue of characterizations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    5. François Maniquet & Philippe Mongin, 2015. "Approval voting and Arrow’s impossibility theorem," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 44(3), pages 519-532, March.
    6. Susumu Cato & Stéphane Gonzalez & Eric Rémila & Philippe Solal, 2022. "Approval voting versus proportional threshold methods: so far and yet so near," Working Papers halshs-03858356, HAL.
    7. Darmann, Andreas & Klamler, Christian & Pferschy, Ulrich, 2009. "Maximizing the minimum voter satisfaction on spanning trees," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 238-250, September.
    8. Uuganbaatar Ninjbat, 2012. "Remarks on Young's theorem," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 32(1), pages 706-714.

    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. Kentaro Hatsumi & Dolors Berga & Shigehiro Serizawa, 2014. "A maximal domain for strategy-proof and no-vetoer rules in the multi-object choice model," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 43(1), pages 153-168, February.
    2. Bonifacio, Agustín G. & Massó, Jordi & Neme, Pablo, 2023. "Preference restrictions for simple and strategy-proof rules: Local and weakly single-peaked domains," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    3. Aki Lehtinen, 2007. "The Borda rule is also intended for dishonest men," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 133(1), pages 73-90, October.
    4. M. Sanver, 2009. "Strategy-proofness of the plurality rule over restricted domains," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 39(3), pages 461-471, June.
    5. Erdamar, Bora & Sanver, M. Remzi & Sato, Shin, 2017. "Evaluationwise strategy-proofness," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 227-238.
    6. Masso, Jordi & Neme, Alejandro, 2001. "Maximal Domain of Preferences in the Division Problem," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 367-387, November.
    7. Chatterji, Shurojit & Sanver, Remzi & Sen, Arunava, 2013. "On domains that admit well-behaved strategy-proof social choice functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(3), pages 1050-1073.
    8. Rodríguez-Álvarez, Carmelo, 2023. "Maximal domains for strategy-proof pairwise exchange," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 107-118.
    9. Rebelo, S., 1997. "On the Determinant of Economic Growth," RCER Working Papers 443, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
    10. Salvador Barberà, 2010. "Strategy-proof social choice," UFAE and IAE Working Papers 828.10, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Anàlisi Econòmica (UAB) and Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica (CSIC).
    11. Jordi MassóAuthor-Email: jordi.masso@uab.es & Alejandro Neme, 2002. "A Maximal Domain of Preferences for Tops-only Rules in the Division Problem," UFAE and IAE Working Papers 535.02, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Anàlisi Econòmica (UAB) and Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica (CSIC).
    12. Krzysztof Kontek & Honorata Sosnowska, 2020. "Specific Tastes or Cliques of Jurors? How to Reduce the Level of Manipulation in Group Decisions?," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(6), pages 1057-1084, December.
    13. Ehlers, Lars, 2002. "Coalitional Strategy-Proof House Allocation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 105(2), pages 298-317, August.
    14. Berga, Dolors & Serizawa, Shigehiro, 2000. "Maximal Domain for Strategy-Proof Rules with One Public Good," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 39-61, January.
    15. Paolo Giovanni Piacquadio, 2017. "A Fairness Justification of Utilitarianism," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 85, pages 1261-1276, July.
    16. Picot, Jérémy & Sen, Arunava, 2012. "An extreme point characterization of random strategy-proof social choice functions: The two alternative case," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 49-52.
    17. P. Battiston & M. Magnani & D. Paolini & L. Rossi, 2024. "Country vs. Music: Strategic Incentives for Competing Voters," Economics Department Working Papers 2024-EP02, Department of Economics, Parma University (Italy).
    18. Jordi Massó & Marc Vorsatz, 2008. "Weighted approval voting," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 36(1), pages 129-146, July.
    19. Tomoya Kazumura & Shigehiro Serizawa, 2016. "Efficiency and strategy-proofness in object assignment problems with multi-demand preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(3), pages 633-663, October.
    20. Diss, Mostapha & Tsvelikhovskiy, Boris, 2021. "Manipulable outcomes within the class of scoring voting rules," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 11-18.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations

    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:31:y:2008:i:1:p:151-162. 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: 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.