Advertisement

Measures of Agreement in Voters’ Preferences

  • William V. Gehrlein
  • Dominique Lepelley
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Choice and Welfare book series (WELFARE)

Abstract

The impact that adding varying degrees of internal structure to voters’ preferences has on the probability of observing Condorcet’s Paradox is considered, by defining the restrictions on voters’ preferences on candidates so that the electorate is behaving in accord with each of several models of rational behavior. Proximity measures are introduced to determine the minimum proportion α of voters’ preference rankings that must be ignored for the remaining voters to have preferences that are in perfect agreement with each of the models of restricted preferences. While it is expected that the probability of observing Condorcet’s Paradox should consistently change as α increases, this outcome is not observed for all of the models. The strongest consistent relationship is found to exist for those models that are based on group mutual coherence that assume that voters can mutually agree on an underlying ordering of candidates along a common dimension.

References

  1. Arrow, K. J. (1963). Social choice and individual values (2nd ed.). New Haven CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Black, D. (1958). The theory of committees and elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Browning, E. K. (1972). A note on cyclical majorities. Public Choice, 12, 111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buchanan, J. M. (1970). The public finances. Homewood, IL: Richard D Irwin Press.Google Scholar
  5. Dryzek, J. S., & List, C. (2003). Social choice theory and deliberative democracy: A reconciliation. British Journal of Political Science, 33, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Felsenthal, D. S., Maoz, Z., & Rapoport, A. (1990). The Condorcet-efficiency of sophisticated voting under the plurality and approval procedures. Behavioral Science, 35, 24–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gehrlein, W. V. (2005). Probabilities of election outcomes with two parameters: The relative impact of unifying and polarizing candidates. Review of Economic Design, 9, 317–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gehrlein, W. V. (2006). Condorcet’s paradox. Berlin: Springer Publishing.Google Scholar
  9. Gehrlein, W. V. (2011). Strong measures of group coherence and the probability that a pairwise majority rule exists. Quality and Quantity, 45, 365–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gehrlein, W. V., & Lepelley, D. (2016). Refining measures of group mutual coherence. Quality and Quantity, 50, 1845–1870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gehrlein, W. V., Lepelley, D., & Moyouwou, I. (2013). The impact of voters’ preference diversity on the probability of some electoral outcomes. Mathematical Social Sciences, 66, 352–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gehrlein, W. V., Lepelley, D., & Plassmann, F. (2016a). Should voters be required to rank candidates in an election? Social Choice and Welfare, 46, 707–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gehrlein, W. V., Lepelley, D., & Plassmann, F. (2016b). To rank or not to rank: A summary. Note at: www.researchgate.net/publication/306276950_To_Rank_or_Not_to_Rank_A_Summary.
  14. Grofman, B., & Uhlaner, C. (1985). Metapreferences and reasons for stability in social choice: Thoughts on broadening and clarifying the debate. Theory and Decision, 19, 31–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kendall, M. G., & Smith, B. B. (1939). The problem of m rankings. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 10, 275–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kuga, K., & Nagatani, H. (1974). Voter antagonism and the paradox of voting. Econometrica, 42, 1045–1067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. List, C. (2002). Two concepts of agreement. The Good Society, 11, 72–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. List, C., Luskin, R. C., Fishkin, J. S., & McLean, I. (2013). Deliberation, single-peakedness, and the possibility of meaningful democracy: Evidence from deliberative polls. The Journal of Politics, 75, 80–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Niemi, R. G. (1969). Majority decision-making under partial unidimensionality. American Political Science Review, 63, 488–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • William V. Gehrlein
    • 1
  • Dominique Lepelley
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Business AdministrationUniversity of DelawareNewarkUSA
  2. 2.University of La RéunionSaint-Denis, Ile de La RéunionFrance

Personalised recommendations