Automation and Remote Control

, Volume 78, Issue 6, pp 1087–1100 | Cite as

On optimal group claims at voting in a stochastic environment

  • V. A. Malyshev
  • P. Yu. Chebotarev
Intellectual Control Systems, Data Analysis


There is a paradox in the model of social dynamics determined by voting in a stochastic environment (the ViSE model) called “pit of losses.” It consists in the fact that a series of democratic decisions may systematically lead the society to the states unacceptable for all the voters. The paper examines how this paradox can be neutralized by the presence in society of a group that votes for its benefit and can regulate the threshold of its claims. We obtain and analyze analytical results characterizing the welfare of the whole society, the group, and the other participants as functions of the said claims threshold.


ViSE model social dynamics voting stochastic environment pit of losses 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Chebotarev, P.Yu., Malyshev, V.A., Tsodikova, Ya.Yu., Loginov, A.K., Lezina, Z.M., and Afonkin, V.A, The Optimal Majority Threshold as a Function of the Coefficient of Variation of the Environment, Upravlen. Bol’shimi Sist., 2016, vol. 62, pp. 169–187.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Borzenko, V.I., Lezina, Z.M., Loginov, A.K., Tsodikova, Ya.Yu., and Chebotarev, P.Yu., Strategies of Voting in Stochastic Environment: Egoism and Collectivism, Autom. Remote Control, 2006, vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 311–328.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mirkin, B.G., Group Choice, Fishburn, P.C., Ed., New York: Wiley, 1979.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    McKelvey, R.D, Intransitivities in Multidimensional Voting Models and Some Implications for Agenda Control, J. Econom. Theory, 1976, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 472–482.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Coughlin, P. and Nitzan, S, Directional and Local Electoral Equilibria with Probabilistic Voting, J. Econom. Theory, 1981, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 226–239.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chebotarev, P.Yu., Loginov, A.K., Tsodikova, Ya.Yu., Lezina, Z.M., and Borzenko, V.I, Voting in a Stochastic Environment: The Case of Two Groups, Autom. Remote Control, 2011, vol. 72, no. 7, pp. 1537–1547.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Palfrey, T.R. and Rosenthal, H, Voter Participation and Strategic Uncertainty, Am. Political Sci. Rev., 1985, vol. 79, no. 1, pp. 62–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Downs, A., An Economic Theory of Democracy, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grofman, B, The Neglected Role of the Status Quo in Models of Issue Voting, J. Politics, 1985, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 229–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Duggan, J. and Kalandrakis, T, Dynamic Legislative Policy Making, J. Econom. Theory, 2012, vol. 147, no. 5, pp. 1653–1688.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Penn, E.M, A Model of Farsighted Voting, Am. J. Polit. Sci., 2009, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 36–54.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dziuda, W. and Loeper, A, Voting Rules in a Changing Environment, SSRN paper 2500777, 2014. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2500777Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dziuda, W. and Loeper, A, Dynamic Collective Choice with Endogenous Status Quo, J. Polit. Economy, 2016, vol. 124, no. 4, pp. 1148–1186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chebotarev, P.Yu., Analytical Expression of the Expected Values of Capital at Voting in the Stochastic Environment, Autom. Remote Control, 2006, vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 480–492.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chebotarev, P.Yu., Loginov, A.K., Tsodikova, Ya.Yu., Lezina, Z.M., and Borzenko, V.I, Snowball of Cooperation and Snowball Communism, Proc. Fourth Int. Conf. on Control Sciences, Moscow, Inst. Probl. Upravlen., 2009, pp. 687–699.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Trapeznikov Institute of Control SciencesRussian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Moscow Institute of Physics and TechnologyMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations