David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Theory and Decision 49 (2):175-196 (2000)
In a three-candidate election, a scoring rule s (s in [0,1]) assigns 1, s, and 0 points (respectively) to each first, second and third place in the individual preference rankings. The Condorcet efficiency of a scoring rule is defined as the conditional probability that this rule selects the winner in accordance with Condorcet criteria (three Condorcet criteria are considered in the paper). We are interested in the following question: What rule s has the greatest Condorcet efficiency? After recalling the known answer to this question, we investigate the impact of social homogeneity on the optimal value of ?. One of the most salient results we obtain is that the optimality of the Borda rule (s=1/2) holds only if the voters act in an independent way.
|Keywords||Voting rules Borda rule Plurality rule Condorcet criteria Social homogeneity|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
William V. Gehrlein & Dominique Lepelley (2009). The Unexpected Behavior of Plurality Rule. Theory and Decision 67 (3):267-293.
Similar books and articles
Michel Regenwetter, James Adams & Bernard Grofman (2002). On the (Sample) Condorcet Efficiency of Majority Rule: An Alternative View of Majority Cycles and Social Homogeneity. Theory and Decision 53 (2):153-186.
Eyal Baharad & Shmuel Nitzan (2011). Condorcet Vs. Borda in Light of a Dual Majoritarian Approach. Theory and Decision 71 (2):151-162.
William V. Gehrlein (2002). Condorcet's Paradox and the Likelihood of its Occurrence: Different Perspectives on Balanced Preferences. Theory and Decision 52 (2):171-199.
Jean-Antoine-Nicolas de Caritat Condorcet (2012). Condorcet: Political Writings. Cambridge University Press.
David Williams (2004). Condorcet and Modernity. Cambridge University Press.
Joel Predd, Robert Seiringer, Elliott Lieb, Daniel Osherson, H. Vincent Poor & Sanjeev Kulkarni (2009). Probabilistic Coherence and Proper Scoring Rules. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 55 (10):4786-4792.
György Márkus (2007). Condorcet: Communication/Science/Democracy. Critical Horizons 8 (1):18-32.
Jan-Willem Romeijn & David Atkinson (2011). Learning Juror Competence: A Generalized Condorcet Jury Theorem. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 10 (3):237-262.
Christopher Thompson (2013). A General Model of a Group Search Procedure, Applied to Epistemic Democracy. Synthese 190 (7):1233-1252.
Jake Chandler (2013). Acceptance, Aggregation and Scoring Rules. Erkenntnis 78 (1):201 - 217.
J. S. Kelly (1986). 1. Condorcet Winner Proportions. Social Choice and Welfare 3 (4).
Added to index2010-09-02
Total downloads10 ( #270,536 of 1,780,829 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #203,623 of 1,780,829 )
How can I increase my downloads?