Automation and Remote Control

, Volume 79, Issue 8, pp 1489–1514 | Cite as

Positional Voting Methods Satisfying the Criteria of Weak Mutual Majority and Condorcet Loser

  • A. Yu. KondratevEmail author
Mathematical Game Theory and Applications


This paper considers a voting problem in which the individual preferences of electors are defined by the ranked lists of candidates. For single-winner elections, we apply the criterion of weak positional dominance (WPD, PD), which is closely related to the positional scoring rules. Also we formulate the criterion of weak mutual majority (WMM), which is stronger than the majority criterion but weaker than the criterion of mutual majority (MM). Then we construct two modifications for the median voting rule that satisfy the Condorcet loser criterion. As shown below, WPD and WMM are satisfied for the first modification while PD and MM for the second modification. We prove that there is no rule satisfying WPD and MM simultaneously. Finally, we check a list of 37 criteria for the constructed rules.


positional voting rules weak mutual majority Condorcet loser median voting rule weak positional dominance majoritarian compromise 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Balinski, M. and Laraki, R., Majority Judgment: Measuring, Ranking, and Electing, Boston: MIT Press, 2011.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bassett, G.W. and Persky, J., Robust Voting, Public Choice, 1999, vol. 99, no. 3–4, pp. 299–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Black, D., The Theory of Committees and Elections, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1958.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brams, S.J. and Kilgour, D.M., Fallback Bargaining, Group Decis. Negotiat., 2001, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 287–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Contreras, I. et al., A Class of Flexible Weight Indices for Ranking Alternatives, IMA J. Manage. Math., 2005, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 71–85.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fishburn, P.C., Paradoxes of Voting, Am. Polit. Sci. Rev., 1974, vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 537–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fishburn, P.C., Monotonicity Paradoxes in the Theory of Elections, Discr. Appl. Math., 1982, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 119–134.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fishburn, P.C. and Brams, S.J., Paradoxes of Preferential Voting, Math. Magaz., 1983, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 207–214.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gaertner, W., Equity and Inequity-Type Borda Rules, Math. Soc. Sci., 1983, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 137–154.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gardenfors, P., Positionalist Voting Functions, Theory Decis., 1973, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–24.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gardenfors, P., Manipulation of Social Choice Functions, J. Econom. Theory, 1976, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 217–228.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Good, I.J., A Note on Condorcet Sets, Public Choice, 1971, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 97–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hashimoto, A., A Ranked Voting System Using a DEA/AR Exclusion Model: A Note, Eur. J. Operat. Res., 1997, vol. 97, no. 3, pp. 600–604.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    May, K.O., A Set of Independent Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Simple Majority Decision, Econometrica, 1952, pp. 680–684.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    McLean, I. and Urken, A.B., Classics of Social Choice, Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ozkal-Sanver, I. and Sanver, M.R., Efficiency in the Degree of Compromise: A New Axiom for Social Choice, Group Decis. Negotiat., 2004, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 375–380.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sanver, M.R. and Zwicker, W.S., Monotonicity Properties and Their Adaptation to Irresolute Social Choice Rules, Soc. Choice Welfare, 2012, vol. 39, no. 2–3, pp. 371–398.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schwartz, T., Rationality and the Myth of the Maximum, Nous, 1972, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 97–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sertel, M.R. and Yilmaz, B., The Majoritarian Compromise is Majoritarian-Optimal and Subgame- Perfect Implementable, Soc. Choice Welfare, 1999, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 615–627.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Smith, J.H., Aggregation of Preferences with Variable Electorate, Econometrica, 1973, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 1027–1041.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stein, W.E. et al., A Stochastic Dominance Analysis of Ranked Voting Systems with Scoring, Eur. J. Operat. Res., 1994, vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 78–85.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tideman, T.N., Independence of Clones as a Criterion for Voting Rules, Soc. Choice Welfare, 1987, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 185–206.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tideman, N., Collective Decisions and Voting: The Potential for Public Choice, Farnham: Ashgate, 2006.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Woodall, D.R., Monotonicity of Single-Seat Preferential Election Rules, Discr. Appl. Math., 1997, vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 81–98.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Young, H.P., Social Choice Scoring Functions, SIAM J. Appl. Math., 1975, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 824–838.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zwicker, W., Introduction to the Theory of Voting, in Handbook of Computational Social Choice, Brandt, F., Conitzer, V., Endriss, U., Lang, J., and Procaccia, A., Eds, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2016.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Research University Higher School of EconomicsSt. PetersburgRussia
  2. 2.Institute of Applied Mathematical Research, Karelian Research CenterRussian Academy of SciencesPetrozavodskRussia

Personalised recommendations