Advertisement

Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 379–388 | Cite as

New Voting Correspondences Obtained from a Distance-Based Framework

  • Estefanía GarcíaEmail author
  • José L. Jimeno
  • Joaquín Pérez
Article
  • 120 Downloads

Abstract

We focus on voting methods that can be described from the information contained in the paired comparison matrix, trying to minimize some type of distance with respect to unanimously good situations. In this context, we obtain a new Voting Correspondence family and, to a certain extent, a new voting method belonging to it, called the Lexicographic MaxMin, and we analyze them with respect to some individual rationality properties like Monotonicity and Participation.

Keywords

Voting Correspondence ρ-norm distance Monotonicity Participation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Campbell DE, Nitzan S (1986) Social compromise and social metrics. Soc Choice Welf 3: 1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Elkind E, Faliszewski P, Slinko A (2011) Rationalizations of condorcet-consistent rules via distances of hamming type. Soc Choice Welf doi: 10.1007/s00355-011-0555-0
  3. García E, Jimeno JL, Pérez J (2005) Two unifying frameworks in voting theory. In: Maroto C et al (eds) Proceedings of the ORP3 meeting at the Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Spain, pp 345–356Google Scholar
  4. Jimeno JL, Pérez J, García E (2009) An extension of the Moulin No Show Paradox for voting correspondences. Soc Choice Welf 33: 343–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Lerer E, Nitzan S (1985) Some general results on the metric rationalization for social decision rules. J Econ Theory 37: 191–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Meskanen T, Nurmi H (2008) Closeness counts in social choice. In: Braham M, Steffen F (eds) Power, freedom, and voting. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, NY, pp 289–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Moulin H (1988) Condorcet’s principle implies the no show paradox. J Econ Theor 45: 53–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Nitzan S (1981) Some measures of closeness to unanimity and their implications. Theor Decis 13(2): 129–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Nurmi H (2004) Consensus finding as distance minimization. In: Dmitriev MG, Petrov AP (eds) Proceedings of the international conference mathematical modelling of social and economical dynamics. Russian State Social University, Moscow, pp 223–237Google Scholar
  10. Pérez J (2001) The strong no show paradoxes are a common flaw in condorcet voting correspondences. Soc Choice Welf 18: 601–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Estefanía García
    • 1
    Email author
  • José L. Jimeno
    • 1
  • Joaquín Pérez
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de Fundamentos de Economía e Historia EconómicaUniversidad de AlcaláAlcalá de HenaresSpain

Personalised recommendations