IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/spr/stcchp/978-3-642-03107-6_1.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

Voting Paradoxes and Their Probabilities

In: Voting Paradoxes and Group Coherence

Author

Listed:
  • William V. Gehrlein

    (University of Delaware)

  • Dominique Lepelley

    (Université de La Réunion)

Abstract

An extraordinary amount of research effort has been dedicated to the application of formal mathematical modeling techniques to the analysis of the question: “How should a group of individual decision-makers go about the process of selecting some alternative that can be viewed as being the best among a set of available alternatives?” Any group decision-making situation of this type can be viewed in the context of an election in which the available alternatives correspond to the candidates in the election, and where the alternative that is selected as the overall best corresponds to the winning candidate in the election. The individual decision-makers within the group are consequently acting as the voters in the election scenario.

Suggested Citation

  • William V. Gehrlein & Dominique Lepelley, 2011. "Voting Paradoxes and Their Probabilities," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Voting Paradoxes and Group Coherence, chapter 0, pages 1-47, Springer.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:stcchp:978-3-642-03107-6_1
    DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-03107-6_1
    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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Alexander Karpov, 2020. "The likelihood of single-peaked preferences under classic and new probability distribution assumptions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 55(4), pages 629-644, December.

    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:stcchp:978-3-642-03107-6_1. 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.