Skip to main content

Analyzing the Probability of Election Outcomes with Abstentions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Evaluating Voting Systems with Probability Models

Part of the book series: Studies in Choice and Welfare ((WELFARE))

Abstract

Earlier analysis considered the coincidence probability for the Condorcet Winners from preference rankings of possible voters and of participating voters when abstention is allowed. The probability of non-coincidence becomes quite high for low voter participation rates with independent voters’ preferences. Pessimistic results were also found under the same conditions for both the Condorcet Efficiency and the probability of observing a Borda Paradox with some common single-stage voting rules. Two options are considered to reverse these negative results. The first adds dependence among voters’ preferences with a commonly used model. The second uses the single-stage voting rules as the basis for two-stage elimination election procedures. Both options are found to make things worse for all voting rules with low voter participation rates. The same negative outcome is also observed for Approval Voting when some voter indifference between candidates is allowed. These preliminary results are valid, but what they are actually found to be showing is that very bad results can be expected for all voting rules when statistical dependence exists among abstaining voters, particularly for low voter participation rates. If a model requires that voters choose to abstain independently, then the addition of dependence among the possible voters’ preferences significantly improves the very negative outcomes that were initially observed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Brams SJ, Fishburn PC (1978) Approval voting. Am Polit Sci Rev 72:831–847

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brams SJ, Fishburn PC (1983) Approval voting. Birkhäuser Publishers, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Brams SJ, Sanver MR (2009) Voting systems that combine approval and preference. In: Brams SJ et al (eds) The mathematics of preference, choice and order: essays in honor of Peter C. Fishburn, studies in choice and welfare. Springer-Verlag Publishers, Berlin, pp 215–237

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng MC (1969) The orthant probability of four Gaussian variables. Ann Mathe Stat 40:152–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Condorcet de M (1785) An essay on the application of probability theory to plurality decision making. In: McLean I, Hewitt F (eds), Condorcet: foundations of social choice and political theory. Edward Elgar Press, Hants (England) and Brookfield (USA), pp 120–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Daunou PCF (1803) A paper on elections by ballot. In: Sommerlad F, McLean I (1991, eds) The political theory of Condorcet II. University of Oxford Working Paper, Oxford, pp 235–279

    Google Scholar 

  • Feller W (1957) An introduction to probability theory and its applications, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn PC, Gehrlein WV (1976) Borda’s rule, positional voting, and Condorcet’s simple majority principle. Public Choice 28:79–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn PC, Gehrlein WV (1980) The paradox of voting: Effects of individual indifference and intransitivity. Public Econ 14:83–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gehrlein WV (1979) A Representation for quadrivariate normal positive orthant probabilities. Commun Statist Part B 8:349–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gehrlein WV (2017) Computing multivariate normal positive orthant probabilities with 4 and 5 variables. Available at www.researchgate.net: Publication 320467212

  • Gehrlein WV, Fishburn PC (1978) Probabilities of election outcomes for large electorates. J Econ Theory 19:38–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gehrlein WV, Fishburn PC (1976) Condorcet’s paradox and anonymous preference profiles. Public Choice 26:1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gehrlein WV, Fishburn PC (1979) Effects of abstentions on voting procedures in three-candidate elections. Behav Sci 24:346–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gehrlein WV, Lepelley D (2011) Voting paradoxes and group coherence: the Condorcet efficiency of voting rules. Springer Publishing, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gehrlein WV, Lepelley D (2015) The condorcet efficiency advantage that voter indifference gives to approval voting over some other voting rules. Group Decis Negot 24:243–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gehrlein WV, Lepelley D (2017a) Elections, voting rules and paradoxical outcomes. Springer Publishing, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gehrlein WV, Lepelley D (2017b) The impact of abstentions on election outcomes when voters have dependent preferences. Available at www.researchgate.net: Publication 316276995

  • Gehrlein WV, Lepelley D (2018) The impact of abstentions when voter indifference exists and a consideration of approval elimination voting rules. Available at www.researchgate.net: Publication327022852

  • Gehrlein WV, Lepelley D, Plassmann F (2016a) Should voters be required to rank candidates in an election? Soc Choice Welfare 46:707–747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gehrlein WV, Lepelley D, Plassmann F (2016b) Further support for ranking candidates in elections. Group Decis Negot 25:941–966

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gehrlein WV, Lepelley D, Plassmann F (2018) An evaluation of the benefit of using two-stage election procedures. Homo Oeconomicus 35:53–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guilbaud GT (1952) Les théories de l’intérêt général et le problème logique de l’agrégation. Economie Appliquée 5:501–584

    Google Scholar 

  • Laslier JF, Sanver MR (2010) Handbook on approval voting. Springer-Verlag, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lepelley D, Louichi A, Smaoui H (2008) On Ehrhart polynomials and probability calculations in voting theory. Soc Choice Welfare 30:363–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald M (2018) United States Election Project at http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/voter-turnout-data

  • Milner H, Loewen PJ, Hicks BM (2007) The paradox of compulsory voting: participation does not equal political knowledge. IRPP Policy Matt 8

    Google Scholar 

  • Saari DG, Van Newenhizen J (1988) The problem of indeterminacy in approval, multiple and truncated voting systems. Public Choice 59:101–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dominique Lepelley .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Gehrlein, W.V., Lepelley, D. (2021). Analyzing the Probability of Election Outcomes with Abstentions. In: Diss, M., Merlin, V. (eds) Evaluating Voting Systems with Probability Models. Studies in Choice and Welfare. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48598-6_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics