Social Choice and Welfare

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 361–372 | Cite as

The effect of social homogeneity on coincidence probabilities for pairwise proportional lottery and simple majority rules

  • William V. Gehrlein
  • Sven Berg


The Condorcet efficiency of Pairwise Proportional Lottery Rules (PPLR) is considered under various assumptions concerning the likelihood that given voters' preference profiles are observed on three alternatives. Representations are developed for the expected Condorcet efficiency under impartial culture, impartial anonymous culture, and a generalization to Pólya-Eggenberger distributions. PPLR is shown to be equivalent to a random selection process in the limit of voters under impartial culture. However, relatively small increases in social homogeneity, as measured by Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance, cause significant increases in the Condorcet efficiency of PPLR.


Selection Process Random Selection Majority Rule Simple Majority Preference Profile 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abrams R (1976) The voter's paradox and the homogeneity of individual preference orders. Publ Choice 26:19–27Google Scholar
  2. Berg S (1985a) Paradox of voting under an urn model: the effect of homogeneity. Publ Choice 47:377–387Google Scholar
  3. Berg S (1985b) A note on plurality distortion in large committees. Eur J Polit Econ 1:271–284Google Scholar
  4. Berg S, Bjurulf B (1983) A note on the paradox of voting: anonymous preference profiles and Mays formula. Publ Choice 40:307–316Google Scholar
  5. Berg S, Lepelley D (1990) Voting cycles, plurality rule and strategic manipulation. Ann Oper Res 23:247–256Google Scholar
  6. Coleman JS (1973) Mathematics of Collective Action. Aldine Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  7. Condorcet Marquis de. “Essai sur l'application de l'analyse à la probabilité des decisions rendues à la pluralité de voix”, Paris (reprinted in 1973 by Chelsea Press, New York)Google Scholar
  8. Fishburn PC (1973) Voter concordance, simple majority, and group decision methods. Behav Sci 18:364–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fishburn PC, Gehrlein WV (1977) Towards a theory of elections with probabilistic voting. Econometrica 45:1907–1923Google Scholar
  10. Fishburn PC, Gehrlein WV (1980) Social homogeneity and Condorcet's paradox. Publ Choice 35,403–420Google Scholar
  11. Fishburn PC, Gehrlein WV (1982) Majority efficiencies for simple voting procedures: summary and interpretation. Theory Decis 14:141–153Google Scholar
  12. Gehrlein WV (1981a) The expected probability of Condorcet's paradox. Econ Lett 7:33–37Google Scholar
  13. Gehrlein WV (1981b) Single stage election procedures for large electorates. J Math Econ 8:263–275Google Scholar
  14. Gehrlein WV (1982). Condorcet efficiency and constant scoring rules. Math Soc Sci 2:123–130Google Scholar
  15. Gehrlein WV (1986) Weighted scoring rules, the impartial culture condition, and homogeneity. Qual Quant 20:85–107Google Scholar
  16. Gehrlein WV (1987) A comparative analysis of measures of social homogeneity. Qual Quant 21:219–231Google Scholar
  17. Gehrlein WV (1990a) The expected likelihood of transivity of preference. Psychometrika 55:695–706Google Scholar
  18. Gehrlein WV (1990b) The expected likelihood of transivity for a probabilistic chooser. Ann Oper Res 23:235–246Google Scholar
  19. Gehrlein WV (1991) Coincidence probabilities for simple majority and proportional lottery rules. Econ Lett 35:349–353Google Scholar
  20. Gehrlein WV, Fishburn PC (1976a) The probability of the paradox of voting: a computable solution. J Econ Theory 13:14–25Google Scholar
  21. Gehrlein WV, Fishburn PC (1976b) Condorcet's paradox and anonymous preference profiles. Publ Choice 26:1–18Google Scholar
  22. Guilbaud GT (1952) Les thěories de l'intérêt général et le problème logique de l'aggrégation. Econ Appl 5:501–584Google Scholar
  23. Intriligator MD (1973) A probabilistic model of social choice. Rev Econ Stud 40:553–560Google Scholar
  24. Johnson NL, Kotz S (1972) Distributions in statistics: continuous multivariate distributions. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnson NL, Kotz S (1977) Urn models and their application. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Kendall MG, Smith BB (1939) The problem of m rankings. Ann Math Stat 10:275–287Google Scholar
  27. Kuga K, Nagatani H (1974) Voter antagonism and the paradox of voting. Econometrica 42:1045–1067Google Scholar
  28. Lepelley D (1986) Some results on the probability of electing the Condorcet loser. Presented at the European Public Choice Society Meeting, Noordwijkerhout, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  29. Lepelley D (1989) Contribution à l'analyse des procédures de décisions collectives. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Université de CaenGoogle Scholar
  30. Lepelley D, Mbih B (1987) The proportion of coallitionally unstable situations under majority rule. Econ Lett 25:311–316Google Scholar
  31. Mueller D (1989) Probabilistic majority rule. Kyklos 42:151–170Google Scholar
  32. Selby SM (1965) Standard mathematical tables (14th ed). Chemical Rubber Company, Cleveland, OHGoogle Scholar
  33. Wilks SS (1962) Mathematical Statistics. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • William V. Gehrlein
    • 1
  • Sven Berg
    • 2
  1. 1.Departments of Business Administration and EconomicsUniversity of DelawareNewarkUSA
  2. 2.Department of StatisticsUniversity of LundLundSweden

Personalised recommendations