IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ekd/009007/9223.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Manipulability of Voting Procedures, Strategic Voting ad Strategic Nomination

Author

Listed:
  • Frantisek Turnovec

Abstract

In this paper the concepts of manipulation as strategic voting (misrepresentation of true preferences) and strategic nomination (by adding, or removing alternatives) are investigated. The connection between Arrow’s and Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorems is discussed from the viewpoint of dilemma between dictatorship and manipulability. Two famous social choice theorems are related to the problems of dictatorship and manipulability. While the Arrow’s “impossibility” theorem is usually associated with non-existence of non dictatorial social preference function, the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem shows that any non-dictatorial non-degenerate social choice function is manipulable. In fact, many authors observe that the both theorems are closely related (Reny, 2000). In this paper we try to reformulate Arrow’s and Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorems from the viewpoint of dilemma between dictatorship and manipulability. In this paper we try to reformulate Arrow’s and Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorems from the viewpoint of dilemma between dictatorship and manipulability.

Suggested Citation

  • Frantisek Turnovec, 2016. "Manipulability of Voting Procedures, Strategic Voting ad Strategic Nomination," EcoMod2016 9223, EcoMod.
    • Handle: RePEc:ekd:009007:9223
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ecomod.net/system/files/Manipulability%20of%20Voting%20procedures%20_ECOMOD_final%20version%2024.4.2016.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Satterthwaite, Mark Allen, 1975. "Strategy-proofness and Arrow's conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 187-217, April.
    2. Reny, Philip J., 2001. "Arrow's theorem and the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem: a unified approach," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 99-105, January.
    3. Gibbard, Allan, 1973. "Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(4), pages 587-601, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Ning Neil Yu, 2013. "A one-shot proof of Arrow’s theorem and the Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 1(2), pages 145-149, November.
    2. Cato, Susumu, 2011. "Maskin monotonicity and infinite individuals," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 110(1), pages 56-59, January.
    3. Miller, Michael K., 2009. "Social choice theory without Pareto: The pivotal voter approach," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 251-255, September.
    4. Priscilla Man & Shino Takayama, 2013. "A unifying impossibility theorem," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 54(2), pages 249-271, October.
    5. Mishra, Debasis & Roy, Souvik, 2012. "Strategy-proof partitioning," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 285-300.
    6. Davide Grossi, 2021. "Lecture Notes on Voting Theory," Papers 2105.00216, arXiv.org.
    7. Uuganbaatar Ninjbat, 2015. "Impossibility theorems are modified and unified," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(4), pages 849-866, December.
    8. Anup Pramanik & Arunava Sen, 2016. "Pairwise partition graphs and strategy-proof social choice in the exogenous indifference class model," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(1), pages 1-24, June.
    9. Pierre Bernhard & Marc Deschamps, 2018. "Arrow’s (im)possibility theorem," Post-Print hal-01941037, HAL.
    10. Cato, Susumu, 2009. "Another induction proof of the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 105(3), pages 239-241, December.
    11. Ninjbat, Uuganbaatar, 2012. "Another direct proof for the Gibbard–Satterthwaite Theorem," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 116(3), pages 418-421.
    12. Uuganbaatar Ninjbat, 2012. "Symmetry vs. complexity in proving the Muller-Satterthwaite theorem," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 32(2), pages 1434-1441.
    13. Gaudeul, Alexia, 2009. "A (micro) course in microeconomic theory for MSc students," MPRA Paper 15388, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Samejima, Yusuke, 2005. "Strategic candidacy, monotonicity, and strategy-proofness," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 190-195, August.
    15. Artemov, Georgy, 2014. "An impossibility result for virtual implementation with status quo," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 122(3), pages 380-385.
    16. Ning Yu, 2015. "A quest for fundamental theorems of social choice," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 44(3), pages 533-548, March.
    17. Elizabeth Maggie Penn, 2015. "Arrow’s Theorem and its descendants," Chapters, in: Jac C. Heckelman & Nicholas R. Miller (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Voting, chapter 14, pages 237-262, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Salvador Barberà, 2003. "A Theorem on Preference Aggregation," UFAE and IAE Working Papers 601.03, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Anàlisi Econòmica (UAB) and Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica (CSIC).
    19. Mitra, Manipushpak & Sen, Debapriya, 2014. "An alternative proof of Fishburn’s axiomatization of lexicographic preferences," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 168-170.
    20. Shino Takayama & Akira Yokotani, 2014. "Serial Dictatorship with Infinitely Many Agents," Discussion Papers Series 503, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Czech Republic; Game theoretical models; Public finance and tax issues;
    All these keywords.

    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:ekd:009007:9223. 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: Theresa Leary (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ecomoea.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.