Condorcet vs. Borda in light of a dual majoritarian approach

Theory and Decision 71 (2):151-162 (2011)
Many voting rules and, in particular, the plurality rule and Condorcet-consistent voting rules satisfy the simple-majority decisiveness property. The problem implied by such decisiveness, namely, the universal disregard of the preferences of the minority, can be ameliorated by applying unbiased scoring rules such as the classical Borda rule, but such amelioration has a price; it implies erosion in the implementation of the widely accepted majority principle . Furthermore, the problems of majority decisiveness and of the erosion in the majority principle are not necessarily severe when one takes into account the likelihood of their occurrence. This paper focuses on the evaluation of the severity of the two problems, comparing simple-majoritarian voting rules that allow the decisiveness of the smallest majority larger than 1/2 and the classical Borda method of counts. Our analysis culminates in the derivation of the conditions that determine, in terms of the number of alternatives k, the number of voters n, and the relative (subjective) weight assigned to the severity of the two problems, which of these rules is superior in light of the dual majoritarian approach.
Keywords Majority decisiveness  Condorcet criterion  Erosion of majority principle  The Borda method of counts
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11238-009-9157-z
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 20,010
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
William V. Gehrlein (1983). Condorcet's Paradox. Theory and Decision 15 (2):161-197.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Christian List (2004). On the Significance of the Absolute Margin. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55 (3):521-544.
Robert E. Goodin & Christian List (2006). Special Majorities Rationalized. British Journal of Political Science 36 (2):213-241.
Gilbert Laffond (2000). Majority Voting on Orders. Theory and Decision 49 (3):249-287.

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

20 ( #181,546 of 1,793,064 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

15 ( #50,793 of 1,793,064 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.