IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/spr/spbchp/978-3-030-12627-8_6.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

Which of 20 Voting Procedures Satisfy or Violate the Subset Choice Condition (SCC) in a Restricted Domain?

In: Voting Procedures Under a Restricted Domain

Author

Listed:
  • Dan S. Felsenthal
  • Hannu Nurmi

    (University of Turku)

Abstract

The relative desirability of a voting procedure is assessed, inter alia, by verifying which axioms, or postulates, it satisfies or violates. One of these axioms is the subset choice condition (SCC). This axiom requires that if a candidate, x, is elected under a given voting procedure, f, in a profile consisting of n voters and k competing candidates (n, k > 1), then x ought to be elected by f also in such profiles over any proper subset of candidates that contain x and that preserve the pairwise preference relations of the original profile. Most known voting procedures violate, in general, this axiom. However, we were interested to find out which voting procedures satisfy or violate this axiom under a restricted domain assumption where a Condorcet winner exists and is elected in the initial profile by the investigated voting procedure. It turns out that, obviously, all conceivable Condorcet-consistent voting procedures satisfy SCC under this restricted domain assumption. However, most known non-Condorcet-consistent procedures continue to violate SCC even under the restricted domain assumption.

Suggested Citation

  • Dan S. Felsenthal & Hannu Nurmi, 2019. "Which of 20 Voting Procedures Satisfy or Violate the Subset Choice Condition (SCC) in a Restricted Domain?," SpringerBriefs in Economics, in: Voting Procedures Under a Restricted Domain, chapter 0, pages 67-74, Springer.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:spbchp:978-3-030-12627-8_6
    DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-12627-8_6
    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_6. 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.