Social Choice and Welfare

, Volume 3, Issue 4, pp 271–291 | Cite as

Choosing from a tournament

  • H. Moulin
Article

Abstract

A tournament is any complete asymmetric relation over a finite set A of outcomes describing pairwise comparisons. A choice correspondence assigns to every tournament on A a subset of winners. Miller's uncovered set is an example for which we propose an axiomatic characterization. The set of Copeland winners (outcomes with maximal scores) is another example; it is a subset of the uncovered set: we note that it can be a dominated subset. A third example is derived from the sophisticated agenda algorithm; we argue that it is a better choice correspondence than the Copeland set.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Banks JS (1985) Sophisticated voting outcomes and agenda control. Soc Choice Welfare 4: 295–306Google Scholar
  2. Bermond JC (1972) Ordres a distance minimum d'un tournoi et graphes partiels sans circuits maximaux. Math Sci Hum 37: 5–25Google Scholar
  3. Bordes G (1983) On the possibility of reasonable consistent majoritarian choice: some postive results. J Econ Theory 31: 122–132Google Scholar
  4. Copeland AH (1951) A reasonable social welfare function (mimeo). University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (Seminar on Application of Mathematics to the Social Science)Google Scholar
  5. Farqharson R (1969) Theory of voting. Yale University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Fishburn P (1977) Condorcet social choice functions. SIAM J Appl Math 33: 469–489Google Scholar
  7. Henriet D (1985) The Copeland choice function: an axiomatic characterization. Soc Choice Welfare 2: 49–63Google Scholar
  8. Kemeny J (1959) Mathematics without numbers. Daedalus 88: 571–591Google Scholar
  9. McKelvey RD (1983) Covering, dominance, and institution-free properties of social choice (mimeo). California Institute of Technology, PasadenaGoogle Scholar
  10. McKelvey RD, Niemi RG (1978) A multistage game representation of sophisticated voting for binary procedures. J Econ Theory 18: 1–22Google Scholar
  11. Miller N (1977) Graph theoretical approaches to the theory of voting. Am J Pol Sci 21: 769–803Google Scholar
  12. Miller N (1980) A new solution set for tournaments and majority voting: further graph theoretical approaches to the theory of voting. Am J Pol Sci 24: 68–96Google Scholar
  13. Miller N (1984) Solution sets for complete digraphs and weak social preferences (mimeo). University of Maryland, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  14. Moon J (1968) Topics on tournaments Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Moulin H (1979) Dominance solvable voting schemes. Econometrica 47: 1337–1351Google Scholar
  16. Moulin H (1984) Choice functions over a finite set: a summary. Soc Choice Welfare 2: 147–160Google Scholar
  17. Rubinstein A (1980) Ranking the participants in a tournament. SIAM J Appl Math 98: 108–111Google Scholar
  18. Schwartz T (1972) Rationality and the myth of the maximum. Nous 6: 97–117Google Scholar
  19. Sen A (1977) Social choice theory: A reexamination. Econometrica 45: 53–89Google Scholar
  20. Shepsle K, Weingast B (1982) Uncovered sets and sophisticated voting outcomes with implications for agenda institutions. Am J Pol Sci 28: 49–74Google Scholar
  21. Slater P (1961) Inconsistencies in a schedule of paired comparisons. Biometrica 48: 303–312Google Scholar
  22. Smith JH (1973) Aggregation of preferences with variable electorate. Econometrica 41: 1027–1041Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Moulin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityBlacksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations