IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/halshs-01289319.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Probabilities of Consistent Election Outcomes with Majorities Based on Difference in Support

Author

Listed:
  • Mostapha Diss

    (GATE Lyon Saint-Étienne - Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon - Saint-Etienne - ENS de Lyon - École normale supérieure de Lyon - UL2 - Université Lumière - Lyon 2 - UCBL - Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 - Université de Lyon - UJM - Université Jean Monnet - Saint-Étienne - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Patrizia Pérez-Asurmendi

    (SEED - Social Equilibrium and Economic Decisions - UPNA - Universidad Pública de Navarra [Espagne] = Public University of Navarra, PRESAD - PReferencias, Elección Social y Ayuda a la Decisión - UVa - Universidad de Valladolid [Valladolid])

Abstract

Computer simulations are used to evaluate the likelihood of consistent outcomes under the class of majorities based on difference in support. These majorities require certain consensus in collective preferences to declare an alternative as the winner. More precisely, individuals show preference intensities in the unit interval among each pair of alternatives and it is required that the winner alternative obtains a difference in the sum of the intensities with respect to the loser alternative. This difference is a real number located between 0 and the total number of voters. We introduce the values of the required threshold for which majorities based on difference in support lead to transitive and triple-acyclic collective decisions with a probability of 1. Our results improve the previous theoretical ones since they require softer thresholds to reach consistent collective decisions.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Mostapha Diss & Patrizia Pérez-Asurmendi, 2016. "Probabilities of Consistent Election Outcomes with Majorities Based on Difference in Support," Post-Print halshs-01289319, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-01289319
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-015-9467-1
    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.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Garcia-Lapresta, Jose Luis & Llamazares, Bonifacio, 2001. "Majority decisions based on difference of votes," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 463-481, June.
    2. Rajat Deb & Manabendra Dasgupta, 1996. "Transitivity and fuzzy preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 13(3), pages 305-318.
    3. Houy, Nicolas, 2007. "Some further characterizations for the forgotten voting rules," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 111-121, January.
    4. Mostapha Diss & Patrizia Pérez-Asurmendi, 2015. "Consistent collective decisions under majorities based on difference of votes," Working Papers 1533, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    5. Mostapha Diss & Patrizia Pérez-Asurmendi, 2014. "Consistent collective decisions under majorities based on differences," Working Papers 1402, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    6. Llamazares, Bonifacio, 2004. "Simple and absolute special majorities generated by OWA operators," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(3), pages 707-720, November.
    7. Davide Cervone & William Gehrlein & William Zwicker, 2005. "Which Scoring Rule Maximizes Condorcet Efficiency Under Iac?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 58(2), pages 145-185, March.
    8. JosÊ Luis GarcÎa-Lapresta & Bonifacio Llamazares, 2000. "Aggregation of fuzzy preferences: Some rules of the mean," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 17(4), pages 673-690.
    9. William Gehrlein & Peter Fishburn, 1976. "Condorcet's paradox and anonymous preference profiles," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 1-18, June.
    10. José Luis Garcí a-Lapresta & Bonifacio Llamazares, 2010. "Preference Intensities and Majority Decisions Based on Difference of Support Between Alternatives," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 19(6), pages 527-542, November.
    11. Fishburn, Peter C. & Gehrlein, William V., 1980. "The paradox of voting : Effects of individual indifference and intransitivity," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 83-94, August.
    12. Balasko, Yves & Cres, Herve, 1997. "The Probability of Condorcet Cycles and Super Majority Rules," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 237-270, August.
    13. William Gehrlein & Peter Fishburn, 1983. "Scoring rule sensitivity to weight selection," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 249-261, January.
    14. Mostapha Diss & Patrizia Pérez-Asurmendi, 2015. "Consistent collective decisions under majorities based on difference of votes," Working Papers halshs-01241996, HAL.
    15. Tovey, Craig A., 1997. "Probabilities of Preferences and Cycles with Super Majority Rules," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 271-279, August.
    16. Klahr, David, 1966. "A Computer Simulation of the Paradox of Voting," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 60(2), pages 384-390, June.
    17. DeMeyer, Frank & Plott, Charles R, 1970. "The Probability of a Cyclical Majority," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 38(2), pages 345-354, March.
    18. Jones, Bradford & Radcliff, Benjamin & Taber, Charles & Timpone, Richard, 1995. "Condorcet Winners and the Paradox of Voting: Probability Calculations for Weak Preference Orders," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 89(1), pages 137-144, March.
    19. William Gehrlein & Peter Fishburn, 1981. "Constant scoring rules for choosing one among many alternatives," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 203-210, April.
    20. Llamazares, Bonifacio, 2006. "The forgotten decision rules: Majority rules based on difference of votes," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 311-326, May.
    21. Llamazares, Bonifacio & Pérez-Asurmendi, Patrizia, 2013. "Triple-acyclicity in majorities based on difference in support," MPRA Paper 52218, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    22. Wade D. Cook & Moshe Kress, 1985. "Ordinal Ranking with Intensity of Preference," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(1), pages 26-32, January.
    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. Mostapha Diss & Patrizia Pérez-Asurmendi, 2015. "Consistent collective decisions under majorities based on difference of votes," Working Papers 1533, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    2. Mostapha Diss & Patrizia Pérez-Asurmendi, 2016. "Consistent collective decisions under majorities based on difference of votes," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(3), pages 473-494, March.
    3. Mostapha Diss & Patrizia Pérez-Asurmendi, 2015. "Consistent collective decisions under majorities based on difference of votes," Working Papers halshs-01241996, HAL.
    4. Richard Baron & Mostapha Diss & Eric Rémila & Philippe Solal, 2015. "A geometric examination of majorities based on difference in support," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(1), pages 123-153, June.
    5. Llamazares, Bonifacio & Pérez-Asurmendi, Patrizia, 2013. "Triple-acyclicity in majorities based on difference in support," MPRA Paper 52218, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa, 2019. "Simulations in Models of Preference Aggregation," Working Papers hal-02424936, HAL.
    7. José Luis Garcí a-Lapresta & Bonifacio Llamazares, 2010. "Preference Intensities and Majority Decisions Based on Difference of Support Between Alternatives," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 19(6), pages 527-542, November.
    8. Michel Regenwetter & James Adams & Bernard Grofman, 2002. "On the (Sample) Condorcet Efficiency of Majority Rule: An alternative view of majority cycles and social homogeneity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 153-186, September.
    9. King, Sarah Schulz & Powers, Robert C., 2018. "Beyond neutrality: Extended difference of votes rules," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 146-152.
    10. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/10286 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Hervé Crès, 2000. "Aggregation of Coarse Preferences," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-01064879, HAL.
    12. Conal Duddy & Ashley Piggins, 2018. "On some oligarchy results when social preference is fuzzy," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(4), pages 717-735, December.
    13. Hervé Crès, 2001. "Aggregation of coarse preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 18(3), pages 507-525.
    14. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/10286 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, 2001. "An Empirical Example of the Condorcet Paradox of Voting in a Large Electorate," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 107(1), pages 135-145, April.
    16. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/10286 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Erik Friese & William V. Gehrlein & Dominique Lepelley & Achill Schürmann, 2017. "The impact of dependence among voters’ preferences with partial indifference," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(6), pages 2793-2812, November.
    18. Adrian Deemen, 2014. "On the empirical relevance of Condorcet’s paradox," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 311-330, March.
    19. Hyewon Jeong & Biung-Ghi Ju, 2017. "Resolute majority rules," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 82(1), pages 31-39, January.
    20. Hervé Crès, 2000. "Aggregation of Coarse Preferences," SciencePo Working papers hal-01064879, HAL.
    21. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/10286 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Issofa Moyouwou & Hatem Smaoui, 2021. "Condorcet Efficiency of General Weighted Scoring Rules Under IAC: Indifference and Abstention," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Mostapha Diss & Vincent Merlin (ed.), Evaluating Voting Systems with Probability Models, pages 55-73, Springer.
    23. Merlin, Vincent & Valognes, Fabrice, 2004. "The impact of indifferent voters on the likelihood of some voting paradoxes," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 343-361, November.
    24. Gehrlein, William V. & Moyouwou, Issofa & Lepelley, Dominique, 2013. "The impact of voters’ preference diversity on the probability of some electoral outcomes," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 352-365.

    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:hal:journl:halshs-01289319. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.