Allard, C. (1996). Estimating the probability of monotonicity failure in a U.K. general election. Voting Matters,
Amy, D. (2000). Behind the ballot box: A citizen’s guide to voting systems. Westport, CN: Praeger.
Berg, S., & Lepelley, D. (1993). Note sur le calcul de la probabilité des paradoxes du vote. Mathématiques, Informatique et Sciences Humaines,
Bradley, P. (1995). STV and monotonicity: A hands-on assessment. Representation,
Brams, S. J., & Fishburn, P. (1983). Some logical defects of the single transferable vote. In A. Lijphart & B. Grofman (Eds.), Choosing an electoral system (pp. 147–151). New York: Praeger.
Curtice, J. (2009). Recent history of second preferences. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/uk_politics/10/alternative_vote/alternative_vote_june_09_notes.pdf).
Doron, G., & Kronick, R. (1977). Single transferable vote: An example of a perverse social choice function. American Journal of Political Science,
Fair Vote (2009). Monotonicity and IRV—why the monotonicity criterion is of little import. (http://archive.fairvote.org/monotonicity/).
Farrell, D. M. (2001). Electoral systems: A comparative introduction. Hampshire: Palgrave.
Felsenthal, D. S. (2012). Review of paradoxes afflicting procedures for electing a single candidate. In D. S. Felsenthal & M. Machover (Eds.), Electoral systems: Paradoxes, assumptions, and procedures (pp. 19–91). Berlin: Springer.
Felsenthal, D. S., & Nurmi, H. (2016). Two types of participation failure under nine voting methods in variable electorates. Public Choice,
Felsenthal, D. S., & Tideman, N. (2013). Varieties of failure of monotonicity and participation under five voting methods. Theory and Decision,
Felsenthal, D. S., & Tideman, N. (2014). Interacting double monotonicity failure with strategic feasibility under five voting methods. Mathematical Social Science,
Fishburn, P., & Brams, S. J. (1983). Paradoxes of preferential voting. Mathematics Magazine,
Lepelley, D., Chantreuil, F., & Berg, S. (1996). The likelihood of monotonicity paradoxes in run-off elections. Mathematical Social Sciences,
Norman, R. Z. (2010). The relationship between monotonicity failure and the no-show paradox. Paper presented at the 2010 annual meeting of the Public Choice Society, Monterey, CA, March 11–14, 2010.
Ornstein, J. (2010). High prevalence of nonmontonic behavior in simulated 3-candidate STV elections. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the public choice society, Monterey, CA, March 11–14, 2010.
Ornstein, J., & Norman, R. Z. (2014). Frequency of monotonicity failure under instant runoff voting: Estimates based on a spatial model of elections. Public Choice,
Plassmann, F., & Tideman, T. N. (2014). How frequently do different voting rules encounter voting paradoxes in three-candidate elections? Social Choice and Welfare,
Poundstone, W. (2008). Gaming the vote: Why elections aren’t fair. New York: Hill and Wang.
Riker, W. H. (1982). Liberalism against populism: A confrontation between the theory of democracy and the theory of social choice. San Francisco: W.W. Freeman.
Ritchie, K., & Gardini, A. (2012). Putting paradoxes into perspective—in defence of the alternative vote. In D. S. Felsenthal & M. Machover (Eds.), Electoral systems: Paradoxes, assumptions, and procedures (pp. 275–303). Berlin: Springer.
Sen, A. K. (1966). A possibility theorem on majority decisions. Econometrica,
Smith, J. H. (1973). Aggregation of preferences with variable electorate. Econometrica,
Smith, W. (2010). Three-candidate instant runoff voting: Master list of paradoxes and their probabilities. Center for Range Voting. http://rangevoting.org/IrvParadoxProbabilities.html.
Straffin, P. D., Jr. (1980). Topics in the theory of voting. Boston: Birkhauser.
Tideman, T. N. (1987). Independence of clones as a criterion for voting rules. Social Choice and Welfare,