IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bgu/wpaper/1812.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Condorcet Winners And Social Acceptability

Author

Listed:
  • Muhammad Mahajne

    (BGU)

  • Oscar Volij

    (BGU)

Abstract

We say that an alternative is socially acceptable if the number of individuals who rank it among their most preferred half of the alternatives is at least as large as the number of individuals who rank it among the least preferred half. A Condorcet winner may not necessarily be socially acceptable. However, if preferences are single-peaked, single-dipped, or satisfy the single-crossing property, any Condorcet winner is socially acceptable. We identify maximal families of preferences that guarantee that Condorcet winners are socially acceptable.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Muhammad Mahajne & Oscar Volij, 2018. "Condorcet Winners And Social Acceptability," Working Papers 1812, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:bgu:wpaper:1812
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://in.bgu.ac.il/en/humsos/Econ/Workingpapers/1812.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Muhammad Mahajne & Oscar Volij, 2018. "The socially acceptable scoring rule," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(2), pages 223-233, August.
    2. Sébastien Courtin & Mathieu Martin & Issofa Moyouwou, 2015. "The $$q$$ q -majority efficiency of positional rules," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(1), pages 31-49, July.
    3. Rothstein, Paul, 1991. "Representative Voter Theorems," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 72(2-3), pages 193-212, December.
    4. Donald G. Saari, 1997. "The generic existence of a core for q -rules (*)," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 9(2), pages 219-260.
    5. Roberts, Kevin W. S., 1977. "Voting over income tax schedules," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 329-340, December.
    6. Sébastien Courtin & Mathieu Martin & Issofa Moyouwou, 2015. "The q-majority efficiency of positional rules," Post-Print hal-00914907, HAL.
    7. Greenberg, Joseph, 1979. "Consistent Majority Rules over Compact Sets of Alternatives," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(3), pages 627-636, May.
    8. Gans, Joshua S. & Smart, Michael, 1996. "Majority voting with single-crossing preferences," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(2), pages 219-237, February.
    9. Alejandro Saporiti & Fernando Tohmé, 2006. "Single-Crossing, Strategic Voting and the Median Choice Rule," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 26(2), pages 363-383, April.
    10. Eyal Baharad & Shmuel Nitzan, 2003. "The Borda rule, Condorcet consistency and Condorcet stability," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 22(3), pages 685-688, October.
    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. Diss, Mostapha & Mahajne, Muhammad, 2020. "Social acceptability of Condorcet committees," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 14-27.
    2. Mostapha Diss & Clinton Gubong Gassi & Issofa Moyouwou, 2023. "Social acceptability and the majoritarian compromise rule," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 61(3), pages 489-510, October.
    3. Ahmad Awde & Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Julien Yves Rolland & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2022. "Social unacceptability for simple voting procedures," Working Papers hal-03614587, HAL.
    4. Ahmad Awde & Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Julien Yves Rolland & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2023. "Social Unacceptability for Simple Voting Procedures," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Sascha Kurz & Nicola Maaser & Alexander Mayer (ed.), Advances in Collective Decision Making, pages 25-42, Springer.
    5. Aleksei Y. Kondratev & Alexander S. Nesterov, 2020. "Measuring majority power and veto power of voting rules," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 183(1), pages 187-210, April.

    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. Diss, Mostapha & Mahajne, Muhammad, 2020. "Social acceptability of Condorcet committees," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 14-27.
    2. Mostapha Diss & Michele Gori, 2022. "Majority properties of positional social preference correspondences," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(2), pages 319-347, March.
    3. Slinko, Arkadii & Wu, Qinggong & Wu, Xingye, 2021. "A characterization of preference domains that are single-crossing and maximal Condorcet," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    4. Puppe, Clemens & Slinko, Arkadii, 2024. "Maximal Condorcet domains. A further progress report," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 426-450.
    5. ,, 2009. "Strategy-proofness and single-crossing," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 4(2), June.
    6. Alejandro Saporiti, 2006. "Strategic voting on single-crossing domains," Economics Discussion Paper Series 0617, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    7. Barberà, Salvador & Moreno, Bernardo, 2011. "Top monotonicity: A common root for single peakedness, single crossing and the median voter result," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 345-359.
    8. Ricardo Martínez & Juan D. Moreno‐Ternero, 2024. "Redistribution with needs," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 26(1), February.
    9. Fan-chin Kung, 2005. "Formation of Collective Decision-Making Units: Stability and a Solution," Game Theory and Information 0505002, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 21 Jun 2005.
    10. Puppe, Clemens & Slinko, Arkadii, 2022. "Maximal Condorcet domains: A further progress report," Working Paper Series in Economics 159, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    11. Clemens Puppe & Arkadii Slinko, 2019. "Condorcet domains, median graphs and the single-crossing property," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 67(1), pages 285-318, February.
    12. Fan-Chin Kung, 2015. "Sorting out single-crossing preferences on networks," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 44(3), pages 663-672, March.
    13. Dietrich, Franz & List, Christian, 2010. "Majority voting on restricted domains," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(2), pages 512-543, March.
    14. Lê Nguyên Hoang, 2017. "Strategy-proofness of the randomized Condorcet voting system," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(3), pages 679-701, March.
    15. Puppe, Clemens, 2018. "The single-peaked domain revisited: A simple global characterization," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 55-80.
    16. Martínez-Mora Francisco & Puy M. Socorro, 2012. "Asymmetric Single-peaked Preferences," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-26, December.
    17. Doghmi Ahmed, 2014. "Nash Implementation in Rationing Problems with Single-Crossing Preferences," Mathematical Economics Letters, De Gruyter, vol. 1(2-4), pages 69-74, July.
    18. Robert Bredereck & Jiehua Chen & Gerhard Woeginger, 2013. "A characterization of the single-crossing domain," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 41(4), pages 989-998, October.
    19. Persson, Torsten & Tabellini, Guido, 2002. "Political economics and public finance," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 24, pages 1549-1659, Elsevier.
    20. Brett, Craig & Weymark, John A., 2016. "Voting over selfishly optimal nonlinear income tax schedules with a minimum-utility constraint," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 18-31.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Condorcet winner; single-peaked preferences; single-crossing;
    All these keywords.

    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:bgu:wpaper:1812. 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: Aamer Abu-Qarn (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/edbguil.html .

    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.