IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/wpaper/hal-00593646.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Majority Vote Following a debate

Author

Listed:
  • Itzhak Gilboa

    (Department of Cell and Developmental Biology - TAU - Tel Aviv University - Sackler Faculty of Medicine, GREGH - Groupement de Recherche et d'Etudes en Gestion à HEC - HEC Paris - Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Nicolas Vieille

    (GREGH - Groupement de Recherche et d'Etudes en Gestion à HEC - HEC Paris - Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

Voters determine their preferences over alternatives based on cases (or arguments) that are raised in the public debate. Each voter is characterized by a matrix, measuring how much support each case lends to each alternative, and her ranking is additive in cases. We show that the majority vote in such a society can be any function from sets of cases to binary relations over alternatives. A similar result holds for voting with quota in the case of two alternatives.

Suggested Citation

  • Itzhak Gilboa & Nicolas Vieille, 2002. "Majority Vote Following a debate," Working Papers hal-00593646, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-00593646
    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. Itzhak Gilboa & David Schmeidler, 2003. "Inductive Inference: An Axiomatic Approach," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(1), pages 1-26, January.
    2. Aragones, Enriqueta & Gilboa, Itzhak & Postlewaite, Andrew & Schmeidler, David, 2014. "Rhetoric and analogies," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 1-10.
    3. Glazer, Jacob & Rubinstein, Ariel, 2001. "Debates and Decisions: On a Rationale of Argumentation Rules," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 158-173, August.
    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. Jerome Mathis, 2006. "Deliberation with Partially Verifiable Information," THEMA Working Papers 2006-03, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    2. VIEILLE, Nicolas, 2002. "Random walks and voting theory," HEC Research Papers Series 753, HEC Paris.

    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. David Austen-Smith & Tim Feddersen, 2002. "The Inferiority of Deliberation Under Unanimity," Discussion Papers 1360, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    2. Ran Spiegler, 2006. "Argumentation in Multi-issue Debates," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 26(2), pages 385-402, April.
    3. Sendhil Mullainathan & Joshua Schwartzstein & Andrei Shleifer, 2008. "Coarse Thinking and Persuasion," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 123(2), pages 577-619.
    4. Jerome Mathis, 2006. "Deliberation with Partially Verifiable Information," THEMA Working Papers 2006-03, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    5. E. Aragones & I. Gilboa & A. Postlewaite & D. Schmeidler, 2003. "Accuracy vs. Simplicity: A Complex Trade-Off," Levine's Working Paper Archive 506439000000000185, David K. Levine.
    6. David Austen-Smith & Tim Feddersen, 2002. "Deliberation and Voting Rules," Discussion Papers 1359, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    7. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David & Wakker, Peter P., 2002. "Utility in Case-Based Decision Theory," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 105(2), pages 483-502, August.
    8. Meirowitz, Adam, 2005. "Deliberative Democracy or Market Democracy: Designing Institutions to Aggregate Preferences and Information," Papers 03-28-2005, Princeton University, Research Program in Political Economy.
    9. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2011. "Economic Models as Analogies," PIER Working Paper Archive 12-001, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    10. Gilboa, Itzhak & Samuelson, Larry & Schmeidler, David, 2013. "Dynamics of inductive inference in a unified framework," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(4), pages 1399-1432.
    11. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2014. "A Model of Modeling," PIER Working Paper Archive 14-026, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    12. O'Callaghan, Patrick, 2016. "Measuring utility without mixing apples and oranges and eliciting beliefs about stock prices," MPRA Paper 69363, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Itzhak Gilboa & Offer Lieberman & David Schmeidler, 2012. "On the Definition of Objective Probabilities by Empirical Similarity," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Case-Based Predictions An Axiomatic Approach to Prediction, Classification and Statistical Learning, chapter 11, pages 259-280, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    14. Stefania D'Amico, 2004. "Density Estimation and Combination under Model Ambiguity," Computing in Economics and Finance 2004 273, Society for Computational Economics.
    15. Enriqueta Aragones & Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & David Schmeidler, 2012. "Fact-Free Learning," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Case-Based Predictions An Axiomatic Approach to Prediction, Classification and Statistical Learning, chapter 8, pages 185-210, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    16. Hervé Crès & Itzhak Gilboa, & Nicolas Vieille, 2012. "Bureaucracy in Quest for Feasibility," Working Papers hal-00973094, HAL.
    17. Bernard Caillaud & Jean Tirole, 2007. "Consensus Building: How to Persuade a Group," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1877-1900, December.
    18. Toru Suzuki, 2021. "Pragmatic Ambiguity and Rational Miscommunication," Working Paper Series 2021/04, Economics Discipline Group, UTS Business School, University of Technology, Sydney.
    19. Gayer, Gabrielle, 2010. "Perception of probabilities in situations of risk: A case based approach," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 130-143, January.
    20. Pe[combining cedilla]ski, Marcin, 2011. "Prior symmetry, similarity-based reasoning, and endogenous categorization," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 146(1), pages 111-140, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Case-based decision theory; voting theory; debates;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design

    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:hal:wpaper:hal-00593646. 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.