Skip to main content

Approval as an Intrinsic Part of Preference

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook on Approval Voting

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

Abstract

The collective decision making problem can be conceived as the aggregation of a vector of utility functions whose informational content depends on the assumptions made about the cardinality and interpersonal comparability of individual preferences. To be more explicit, we consider a non-empty set N of individuals and a non-empty set A of alternatives. Letting U(A) be the set of real-valued “utility functions” defined over A, we model the problem through an aggregation function f : U(A)N → 2A\{Ø} The assumptions about the cardinality and interpersonal comparability of individual preferences are formalized by partitioning U(A) into information sets, while requiring f to be invariant at any two vector of utility functions which belong to the same information set. At one extreme, one can assume the existence of an absolute scale over which the utilities of individuals are measured and compared. This assumption partitions U(A) into singleton information sets, hence imposing no invariance over f. At the other extreme, one can rule out any kind of cardinal information and interpersonal comparability, in which case an information set consists of the elements of U(A) which are ordinally equivalent, i.e., induce the same ordering of alternatives for every individual.1 When cardinality and interpersonal comparability are ruled out, the problem can be modeled through an aggregation function f : W(A)N → 2A\{Ø} where W(A) is the set of weak orders (i.e., complete and transitive binary relations) over A. We refer to this as the Arrovian model (Arrow 1950, 1951).

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Aizerman, M., & Aleskerov, F. (1995). Theory of choice. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aleskerov, F., Yakuba, V., & Yuzbashev D. (2007). A ‘threshold aggregation’ of three-graded rankings. Mathematical Social Sciences, 53(1), 106–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. J. (1950). A difficulty in the concept of social welfare. Journal of Political Economy, 58, 328–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. J. (1951). Social choice and individual values. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balinski, M., & Laraki, R. (2007). A theory of measuring, electing and ranking. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 104(21), 8720–8725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barberà, S. (1977). The manipulation of social choice mechanisms that do not leave “too much” to chance. Econometrica, 45, 1573–1588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bordes, G. (1979). Some more results on consistency, rationality and collective choice. In J. J. Laffont (ed.), Aggregation and revelation of preferences. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bossert, W., & Weymark, J. A. (2004). Utility in social choice. In S. Barberà, P. J. Hammond, & C. Seidl (Eds.), Handbook of utility theory (Vol. 2). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brams, S. J. & Doherty, A. E. (1993). Intransigence in negotiations: The dynamics of disagreement. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 37(4), 692–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brams, S. J. & Fishburn, P. C. (2002). Voting procedures. In K. J. Arrow, A. K. Sen, & K. Suzumura (Eds.), Handbook of social choice and welfare (Vol. 1). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brams, S. J., Fishburn, P. C., & Merrill, S. (1988a). The responsiveness of Approval Voting: Comments on Saari and van Newenhizen. Public Choice, 59, 121–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brams, S. J., Fishburn, P. C., & Merrill, S. (1988b). Rejoinder to Saari and Van Newenhizen. Public Choice, 59, 149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brams, S. J., & Kilgour, D. M. (2001). Fallback bargaining. Group Decision and Negotiation, 10(4), 287–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brams, S. J. & Sanver, M. R. (2006). Critical strategies under Approval Voting: Who gets ruled in and who gets ruled out. Electoral Studies, 25(2), 287–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brams, S. J. & Sanver, M. R. (2009). Voting systems that combine approval and preference. In S. Brams, W. V. Gehrlein, & F. S. Roberts (Eds.), The mathematics of preference, choice and order. Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chernoff, H. (1954). Rational selection of decision functions. Econometrica, 22, 422–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dellis, A. (2010). Policy moderation and endogeneous candidacy in Approval Voting elections. In J. F. Laslier & M. R. Sanver (Eds.), Handbook of Approval Voting. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Endriss, U., Pini, M. S., Rossi, F., & Venable, K. B. (2009). Preference aggregation over restricted ballot languages: Sincerity and strategy-proofness (mimeo).

    Google Scholar 

  • Erdelyi, G., Nowak, M., & Rothe, J. (2008). Sincere-strategy preference-based Approval Voting broadly resists control. In E. EOchmanski & J. Tyszkiewicz (Eds.), Mathematical foundations of computer science 2008. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C. (1982). Monotonicity paradoxes in the theory of elections. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 4(2), 119–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillinger, C. (2005). The case for utilitarian voting. Homo Oeconomicus, 23, 295–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoag, C., & Hallett, G. (1926). Proportional representation. New York: The Macmillan Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laslier, J. F., & Maniquet, F. (2010). Classical electoral competition under Approval Voting. In J. F. Laslier & M. R. Sanver (eds.), Handbook of Approval Voting. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laslier, J. F., & Sanver, M. R. (2010a). Introduction. In J. F. Laslier, & M. R. Sanver (Eds.), Handbook of Approval Voting. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laslier, J. F., & Sanver, M. R. (2010b). The basic Approval Voting game. In J. F. Laslier & M. R. Sanver (Eds.), Handbook of Approval Voting. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moulin, H. (1988). Axioms of cooperative decision making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nash, J. F. (1950). The bargaining problem. Econometrica, 18(2), 155–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng, Y. K. (1992). Utilitarianism and interpersonal comparison: Some implications of a materialist solution to the world knot. Social Choice and Welfare, 9(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niemi, R. G. (1984). The problem of strategic behavior under Approval Voting. American Political Science Review, 78, 952–958.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunez, M. (2010). Approval Voting in large electorates. In J. F. Laslier, & M. R. Sanver (Eds.), Handbook of Approval Voting. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peleg, B. (1979). Game theoretic analysis of voting schemes. In O. Moeschlin & D. Pallaschke (Eds.), Game theory and related topics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peleg, B. (1981). Monotonicity properties of social choice correspondences. In O. Moeschlin & D. Pallaschke (Eds.), Game theory and mathematical economics. Amsterdam: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peleg, B. (1984). Game theoretic analysis of voting in committees. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, H., Roy, S., & Storcken, T. (2009). On the manipulability of Approval Voting and related scoring rules. unpublished manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, A., & Sotomayor, M. A. O. (1990). Two-sided matching: A study in game theoretic modelling and analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saari, D. G. (1989). A dictionary for voting paradoxes. Journal of Economic Theory, 48, 443–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saari, D. G., & Newenhizen, J. V. (1988a). The problem of indeterminacy in approval, multiple, and truncated voting systems. Public Choice, 59, 101–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saari, D. G. & Newenhizen, J. V. (1988b). Is Approval Voting an unmitigated evil: A response to Brams, Fishburn and Merrill. Public Choice, 59, 133–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanver, M. R., & Zwicker, W. S. (2009). Monotonicity properties and their adaptation to irresolute social choice rules (mimeo).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1986). Social choice theory. In K. J. Arrow & M. D. Intriligator (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical economics (Vol. 3). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sertel, M. R. (1986). unpublished lecture notes. Bogaziçi University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sertel, M. R., & van der Bellen, A. (1979). Synopsis in the theory of choice. Econometrica, 47(6), 1367–1389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sertel, M. R. & Yilmaz, B. (1999). The Majoritarian Compromise is majoritarian-optimal and subgame-perfect implementable. Social Choice and Welfare 16(4), 615–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Remzi Sanver .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sanver, M.R. (2010). Approval as an Intrinsic Part of Preference. In: Laslier, JF., Sanver, M. (eds) Handbook on Approval Voting. Studies in Choice and Welfare. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02839-7_20

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02839-7_20

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-02838-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-02839-7

  • eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics