IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/dpr/wpaper/1013.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

On Strategy-proof Social Choice between Two Alternatives

Author

Listed:
  • Abhinaba Lahiri
  • Anup Pramanik

Abstract

We study strategy-proof rules for choosing between two alternatives. We consider the full preference domain which allows for indifference. In this framework, for strategy-proof rules, ontoness does not imply efficiency. We weaken the requirement of efficiency to ontoness and characterizes the class of strategy-proof rules. We argue that the notion of efficiency is not desirable always. Our main result provides a simple characterization of the class of onto, anonymous and strategy-proof rules in this framework. Our analysis can help policy makers choose among these rules.

Suggested Citation

  • Abhinaba Lahiri & Anup Pramanik, 2017. "On Strategy-proof Social Choice between Two Alternatives," ISER Discussion Paper 1013, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    • Handle: RePEc:dpr:wpaper:1013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.iser.osaka-u.ac.jp/library/dp/2017/DP1013.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Salvador Barberà & Dolors Berga & Bernardo Moreno, 2012. "Group strategy-proof social choice functions with binary ranges and arbitrary domains: characterization results," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 41(4), pages 791-808, November.
    2. Moulin,Hervi, 1991. "Axioms of Cooperative Decision Making," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521424585, October.
    3. Manjunath, Vikram, 2012. "Group strategy-proofness and voting between two alternatives," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 239-242.
    4. Barbera, Salvador & Sonnenschein, Hugo & Zhou, Lin, 1991. "Voting by Committees," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(3), pages 595-609, May.
    5. Barbera, Salvador & Sonnenschein, Hugo & Zhou, Lin, 1991. "Voting by Committees," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(3), pages 595-609, May.
    6. Núñez, Matías & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2017. "Revisiting the connection between the no-show paradox and monotonicity," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 9-17.
    7. Patrick Harless, 2015. "Reaching consensus: solidarity and strategic properties in binary social choice," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(1), pages 97-121, June.
    8. Biung-Ghi Ju, 2003. "A characterization of strategy-proof voting rules for separable weak orderings," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 21(3), pages 469-499, December.
    9. Thierry Marchant & Debasis Mishra, 2015. "Mechanism design with two alternatives in quasi-linear environments," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 44(2), pages 433-455, February.
    10. Larsson, Bo & Svensson, Lars-Gunnar, 2006. "Strategy-proof voting on the full preference domain," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 272-287, December.
    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. Basile, Achille & Rao, Surekha & Bhaskara Rao, K.P.S., 2022. "Anonymous, non-manipulable binary social choice," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 138-149.
    2. Stergios Athanasoglou & Somouaoga Bonkoungou, 2024. "Sequential unanimity voting rules for binary social choice," Papers 2402.13009, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2024.
    3. Basile, Achille & Rao, Surekha & Bhaskara Rao, K.P.S., 2022. "Geometry of anonymous binary social choices that are strategy-proof," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 85-91.
    4. Achille Basile & Surekha Rao & K. P. S. Bhaskara Rao, 2020. "The structure of two-valued strategy-proof social choice functions with indifference," Papers 2002.06341, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2020.
    5. Anna De Simone & Ciro Tarantino, 2021. "Functional Form of Nonmanipulable Social Choice Functions with Two Alternatives," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(21), pages 1-14, November.

    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. Achille Basile & Surekha Rao & K. P. S. Bhaskara Rao, 2022. "Binary strategy-proof social choice functions with indifference," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 73(2), pages 807-826, April.
    2. Makoto Hagiwara & Hirofumi Yamamura, 2020. "Upper set rules with binary ranges," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 54(4), pages 657-666, April.
    3. Salvador Barberà & Dolors Berga & Bernardo Moreno, 2012. "Domains, ranges and strategy-proofness: the case of single-dipped preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 39(2), pages 335-352, July.
    4. Barberà, Salvador & Berga, Dolors & Moreno, Bernardo, 2022. "Restricted environments and incentive compatibility in interdependent values models," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 1-28.
    5. Patrick Harless, 2015. "Reaching consensus: solidarity and strategic properties in binary social choice," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(1), pages 97-121, June.
    6. Vikram Manjunath, 2014. "Efficient and strategy-proof social choice when preferences are single-dipped," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 43(3), pages 579-597, August.
    7. Berga, Dolors & Moreno, Bernardo, 2020. "Preference reversal and group strategy-proofness," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    8. Salvador Barberà & Dolors Berga & Bernardo Moreno, 2012. "Group strategy-proof social choice functions with binary ranges and arbitrary domains: characterization results," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 41(4), pages 791-808, November.
    9. Basile, Achille & Rao, Surekha & Bhaskara Rao, K.P.S., 2022. "Anonymous, non-manipulable binary social choice," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 138-149.
    10. Manjunath, Vikram, 2012. "Group strategy-proofness and voting between two alternatives," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 239-242.
    11. Basile, Achille & Rao, Surekha & Bhaskara Rao, K.P.S., 2021. "The structure of two-valued coalitional strategy-proof social choice functions," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    12. Dinko Dimitrov & Ruud Hendrickx & Peter Borm, 2004. "Good and bad objects: the symmetric difference rule," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(11), pages 1-7.
    13. Kentaro Hatsumi & Dolors Berga & Shigehiro Serizawa, 2014. "A maximal domain for strategy-proof and no-vetoer rules in the multi-object choice model," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 43(1), pages 153-168, February.
    14. Bandhu, Sarvesh & Lahiri, Abhinaba & Pramanik, Anup, 2020. "A characterization of status quo rules in the binary social choice model," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    15. Van der Linden, Martin, 2017. "Impossibilities for strategy-proof committee selection mechanisms with vetoers," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 111-121.
    16. Anna De Simone & Ciro Tarantino, 2021. "Functional Form of Nonmanipulable Social Choice Functions with Two Alternatives," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(21), pages 1-14, November.
    17. José Alcantud & Ritxar Arlegi, 2012. "An axiomatic analysis of ranking sets under simple categorization," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 3(1), pages 227-245, March.
    18. Stefano Vannucci, 2013. "On two-valued nonsovereign strategy-proof voting rules," Department of Economics University of Siena 672, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    19. Biung-Ghi Ju, 2005. "A characterization of plurality-like rules based on non-manipulability, restricted efficiency, and anonymity," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 33(3), pages 335-354, September.
    20. Achille Basile & Anna De Simone & Ciro Tarantino, 2022. "A Note on Binary Strategy-Proof Social Choice Functions," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-19, November.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:dpr:wpaper:1013. 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: Librarian (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/isosujp.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.