An assessment of voting system simulations
- Hannu Nurmi
- … show all 1 hide
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
In applying the results of the social choice theory to voting procedures, the question arises as to how often the various anomalies can be expected to occur. Computer simulations and probability modelling are common approaches to address this problem. This article is an attempt to find out the robustness of the so-called impartial culture assumption. For this purpose first a major perturbation of the impartial culture assumption is considered and, thereafter, we focus on a few minor modifications of the assumption.
- Arkin, H. and Colton, R.R. (1963).Tables for statisticians, 2nd ed. New York: Barnes & Noble.
- Arrow, K.J. (1963).Social choice and individual values, 2nd edition. New York: Wiley.
- Black, D. (1958).Theory of committees and elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Garman, B. and Kamien, M. (1968). The paradox of voting: Probability calculations.Behavioral Science 13: 306–316.
- Gehrlein, W.V. (1981). The expected probability of Condorcet's paradox.Economics Letters 7: 33–37.
- Gehrlein, W.V. (1983). Condorcet's paradox.Theory and Decision 15: 161–197.
- Gehrlein, W.V. (1985). Condorcet efficiency of constant scoring rules for large electorates.Economics Letters 19: 13–15.
- Kelly, J.S. (1978).Arrow impossibility theorems. New York: Academic Press.
- Klahr, D. (1966). A computer simulation of the paradox of voting.American Political Science Review 60: 284–290.
- Merrill, S. (1984). A comparison of efficiency of multicandidate electoral systems.American Journal of Political Science 28: 23–48.
- Merrill, S. (1988).Making multicandidate elections more democratic. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
- Nanson, E.J. (1883). Methods of elections. InTransactions and proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria, Art. XIX: 197–240.
- Niemi, R.G. and Weisberg, W.F. (1968). A mathematical solution for the probability of the paradox of voting.Behavioral Science 13: 317–323.
- Niou, E.M.S. (1987). A note on Nanson's rule.Public Choice 54: 191–193.
- Nurmi, H. (1985). Problems of voting procedure. InYear Book 1984–1985, Helsinki: Academia Scientiarum Fennica.
- Nurmi, H. (1986). Mathematical models of elections and their relevance for institutional design.Electoral Studies 5: 167–181.
- Nurmi, H. (1987).Comparing voting systems. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
- Nurmi, H. (1988). Discrepancies in the outcomes resulting from different voting schemes.Theory and Decision 25: 193–208.
- Nurmi, H. (1989). On Nanson's method. In J. Paastela (Ed.),Democracy in the modern world. Tampere: Acta Universitatis Tamperensis.
- Nurmi, H. (1990). Probability models in constitutional choice.European Journal of Political Economy 6: 107–117.
- Richelson, J.T. (1979). A comparative analysis of social choice functions I, II, III: A summary.Behavioral Science 24: 355.
- Riker, W.H. (1961). Voting and the summation of preferences.American Political Science Review 55: 900–911.
- Riker, W.H. (1982).Liberalism against populism. San Francisco: Freeman.
- Straffin, P.D. (1980).Topics in the theory of voting. Boston: Birkhäuser.
- Todhunter, I. (1949).A history of the mathematical theory of probability from the time of Pascal to that of Laplace. New York: Chelsea Publishing Company (original 1865).
- Weisberg, H.F. and Niemi, R.G. (1972). Probability calculations for cyclical majorities in congressional voting. In R.G. Niemi and H.F. Weisberg (Eds.),Probability models of collective decision making. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
- Wright, S.G. and Riker, W.H. (1989). Plurality and runoff systems and numbers of candidates.Public Choice 60: 155–175.
- An assessment of voting system simulations
Volume 73, Issue 4 , pp 459-487
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Kluwer Academic Publishers
- Additional Links
- Industry Sectors
- Hannu Nurmi (1)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Political Science, University of Turku, SF-20500, Turku, Finland