IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/sochwe/v49y2017i2d10.1007_s00355-017-1063-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The likelihood of a Condorcet winner in the logrolling setting

Author

Listed:
  • William Gehrlein

    (University of Delaware)

  • Michel Breton

    (Toulouse School of Economics and Institut Universitaire de France)

  • Dominique Lepelley

    (Université de la Réunion)

Abstract

The purpose of this note is to compute the probability of logrolling for three different probabilistic cultures. The primary finding is that the restriction of preferences to be in accord with the condition of separable preferences creates enough additional structure among voters’ preference rankings to create an increase in the likelihood that a Condorcet winner will exist with both IC and IAC-based scenarios. However this increase is limited and the probabilities remain close to the conventional probabilities of having a Condorcet winner when preferences are unrestricted.

Suggested Citation

  • William Gehrlein & Michel Breton & Dominique Lepelley, 2017. "The likelihood of a Condorcet winner in the logrolling setting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 49(2), pages 315-327, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:sochwe:v:49:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s00355-017-1063-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s00355-017-1063-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00355-017-1063-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00355-017-1063-7?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. Riker, William H. & Brams, Steven J., 1973. "The Paradox of Vote Trading," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 67(4), pages 1235-1247, December.
    2. Alessandra Casella & Thomas Palfrey, 2015. "Trading Votes for Votes. A Decentralized Matching Algorithm," NBER Working Papers 21645, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Mark Fey, 2008. "Choosing from a large tournament," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(2), pages 301-309, August.
    4. William Gehrlein & Dominique Lepelley & Issofa Moyouwou, 2015. "Voters’ preference diversity, concepts of agreement and Condorcet’s paradox," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 49(6), pages 2345-2368, November.
    5. Thomas Schwartz, 1975. "Vote trading and Pareto efficiency," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 101-109, December.
    6. Achill Schürmann, 2013. "Exploiting polyhedral symmetries in social choice," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(4), pages 1097-1110, April.
    7. Peter Bernholz, 1973. "Logrolling, arrow paradox and cyclical majorities," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 87-95, June.
    8. Koehler, David H., 1975. "Vote Trading and the Voting Paradox: A Proof of Logical Equivalence," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 69(3), pages 954-960, September.
    9. Nicholas Miller, 1977. "Logrolling, vote trading, and the paradox of voting: A game-theoretical overview," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 51-75, June.
    10. Michel Le Breton & Guillaume Hollard, 1996. "Logrolling and a McGarvey theorem for separable tournaments," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 13(4), pages 451-455.
    11. Joseph Kadane, 1972. "On division of the question," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 47-54, September.
    12. Nicholas Miller, 1975. "Logrolling and the arrow paradox: A note," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 107-110, March.
    13. Gehrlein, William V. & Fishburn, Peter C., 1976. "The probability of the paradox of voting: A computable solution," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 14-25, August.
    14. Bell, Colin E, 1981. "A Random Voting Graph Almost Surely Has a Hamiltonian Cycle When the Number of Alternatives Is Large," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(6), pages 1597-1603, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Casella, Alessandra & Palfrey, Thomas R., 2021. "Trading votes for votes: A laboratory study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 1-26.
    2. Fatma Aslan & Hayrullah Dindar & Jean Lainé, 2022. "When are committees of Condorcet winners Condorcet winning committees?," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(3), pages 417-446, September.
    3. Casella, Alessandra & Turban, Sébastien, 2014. "Democracy undone. Systematic minority advantage in competitive vote markets," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 47-70.
    4. Alessandra Casella & Antonin Macé, 2021. "Does Vote Trading Improve Welfare?," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 13(1), pages 57-86, August.
    5. Dean Lacy & Emerson M.S. Niou, 2000. "A Problem with Referendums," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 12(1), pages 5-31, January.
    6. Casella, Alessandra & Palfrey, Thomas & Turban, Sébastien, 2014. "Vote trading with and without party leaders," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 115-128.
    7. Mario Gilli & Yuan Li & Jiwei Qian, 2018. "Logrolling under fragmented authoritarianism: theory and evidence from China," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 197-214, April.
    8. Thomas Schwartz, 2021. "Parties," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 462-475, December.
    9. Casella, Alessandra & Macé, Antonin, 2020. "Does Vote Trading Improve Welfare?," CEPR Discussion Papers 15201, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    10. Eric Kamwa, 2019. "On the Likelihood of the Borda Effect: The Overall Probabilities for General Weighted Scoring Rules and Scoring Runoff Rules," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 519-541, June.
    11. Kenneth Koford, 1982. "Centralized vote-trading," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 245-268, January.
    12. Lee, Barton E., 2022. "Gridlock, leverage, and policy bundling," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    13. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2019. "On some k-scoring rules for committee elections: agreement and Condorcet Principle," Working Papers hal-02147735, HAL.
    14. Diss, Mostapha & Mahajne, Muhammad, 2020. "Social acceptability of Condorcet committees," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 14-27.
    15. Casella, Alessandra & Palfrey, Thomas R, 2015. "Trading Votes for Votes. A Decentralized Matching Algorithm," CEPR Discussion Papers 10908, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    16. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2018. "The Chamberlin-Courant Rule and the k-Scoring Rules: Agreement and Condorcet Committee Consistency," Working Papers halshs-01817943, HAL.
    17. Knoll Bodo & Koenig Andreas, 2011. "Leviathan Europa – Stärkung der Nationalstaaten und der EU durch konstitutionelle Schranken?," Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 60(2), pages 127-145, August.
    18. 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.
    19. Daniela Bubboloni & Mostapha Diss & Michele Gori, 2020. "Extensions of the Simpson voting rule to the committee selection setting," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 183(1), pages 151-185, April.
    20. Thomas Schwartz, 2011. "One-dimensionality and stability in legislative voting," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 148(1), pages 197-214, July.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior

    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:49:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s00355-017-1063-7. 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.