IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/spr/spbchp/978-3-030-12627-8_3.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

The (In)Vulnerability of 20 Voting Procedures to Lack of Monotonicity in a Restricted Domain

In: Voting Procedures Under a Restricted Domain

Author

Listed:
  • Dan S. Felsenthal
  • Hannu Nurmi

    (University of Turku)

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the possibility that some well-known voting procedures lead to specific types of monotonicity paradoxes in preference profiles that are characterized by the presence and election of a Condorcet winner. Moulin’s (Journal of Economic Theory 45:53–64, 1988) theorem establishes the incompatibility of Condorcet-consistency and invulnerability to the No-Show paradox in voting procedures when there are more than three alternatives to be chosen from. We ask whether this conclusion would also hold in the proper subset of profiles distinguished by the property that a Condorcet winner exists and is elected in the initial profile. Our focus is on 20 voting procedures designed to elect a single candidate. These procedures include both Condorcet-consistent and non-consistent rules. The former are, however, only briefly touched upon because their invulnerability to most types of monotonicity violations in the restricted domain is obvious.

Suggested Citation

  • Dan S. Felsenthal & Hannu Nurmi, 2019. "The (In)Vulnerability of 20 Voting Procedures to Lack of Monotonicity in a Restricted Domain," SpringerBriefs in Economics, in: Voting Procedures Under a Restricted Domain, chapter 0, pages 17-40, Springer.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:spbchp:978-3-030-12627-8_3
    DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-12627-8_3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    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:spbchp:978-3-030-12627-8_3. 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.