Skip to main content
Log in

A characterization of the maximin rule in the context of voting

  • Published:
Theory and Decision Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In a voting context, when the preferences of voters are described by linear orderings over a finite set of alternatives, the Maximin rule orders the alternatives according to their minimal rank in the voters’ preferences. It is equivalent to the Fallback bargaining process described by Brams and Kilgour (Group Decision and Negotiation 10:287–316, 2001). This article proposes a characterization of the Maximin rule as a social welfare function (SWF) based upon five conditions: Neutrality, Duplication, Unanimity, Top Invariance, and Weak Separability. In a similar way, we obtain a characterization for the Maximax SWF by using Bottom Invariance instead of Top Invariance. Then, these results are compared to the axiomatic characterizations of two famous scoring rules, the Plurality rule and the Antiplurality rule.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aleskerov, F., Vyacheslav, V., Chistyakov, V., & Kaliyagin, V. (2010). Social threshold aggregations. Social Choice and Welfare, forthcoming.

  • Arrow K. J., Hurwicz L. (1972) An optimality criterion for decision-making under ignorance. In: Carter C. F., Ford J. L. (eds) Uncertainty and expectations in economics. Basil Blackwell & Mott Ltd, Oxford, pp 1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Barberà S., Dutta B. (1982) Implementability via protective equilibria. Journal of Mathematical Economics 10: 49–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barberà S., Dutta B. (1986) General, direct and self-implementation of social choice functions via protective equilibria. Mathematical Social Sciences 11: 109–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brams S. J., Kilgour D. M., Sanver R. (2004) A minimax procedure for negotiating multilateral treaties. In: Wiberg Matti (eds) Reasoned choices: Essays in honor of Hannu Nurmi. Finnish Political Science Association, Turku, Finland, pp 108–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, D. R., & Raiffa, H. (1957). Games and decisions: Introduction and critical survey (Chap. 13). New York: Wiley.

  • Maniquet, F., & Sen, A. (2001). An axiomatic characterization of Leximin Voting. (Unpublished manuscript).

  • May K. (1952) A set of independent, necessary and sufficient conditions for simple majority decision. Econometrica 20: 680–684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merlin, V. (1996). L’agrégation des préférences individuelles: les règles positionnelles itératives et la méthode de Copeland. (PhD dissertation, Université de Caen, 1996).

  • Milnor J. (1954) Games against nature. In: Thrall R. M., Coombs C. H., Davis R. L. (eds) Decision processes. Wiley, New York, pp 49–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Moulin H. (1981) Prudence vs. sophistication in voting strategy. Journal of Economic Theory 24: 398–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Muller E., Satterthwaite M. A. (1977) The equivalence of strong positive association and strategy-proofness. Journal of Economic Theory 14: 412–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saari D. G. (1991) Consistency of decision processes. Annals of Operation Research 23: 103–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sertel, M. R. (1986). Lectures notes in microeconomics, Bogazici University. (Unpublished manuscript).

  • Sertel M. R., Yilmaz B. (1999) The majoritarian compromise is majoritarian optimal and subgame perfect implementable. Social Choice and Welfare 16: 615–627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith J. H. (1973) Aggregation of preferences with variable electorate. Econometrica 41: 1027–1041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yokoo M., Sakurai Y., Matsubara B. (2005) The effect of false-name bids in combinatorial auctions: New frauds in internet auctions. Games and Economic Behavior 46: 174–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young H. P. (1974) An axiomatization of Borda’s rule. Journal of Economic Theory 9: 43–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young H. P. (1975) Social choice scoring functions. SIAM Journal of Applied Mathematics 28: 824–838

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ronan Congar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Congar, R., Merlin, V. A characterization of the maximin rule in the context of voting. Theory Decis 72, 131–147 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-010-9229-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-010-9229-0

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation