Review of paradoxes afflicting various voting procedures where one out of m candidates (m ≥ 2) must be elected [Book Review]
The paper surveys 17 deterministic electoral procedures for selecting one out of two or more candidates, as well as the susceptibility of each of these procedures to various paradoxes. A detailed appendix exemplifies the paradoxes to which each electoral procedure is susceptible. It is concluded that from the perspective of vulnerability to serious paradoxes, as well as in light of additional technical criteria, Copeland’s or Kemeny’s proposed procedures are the most desirable.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Published in Philosoohy and Phenomenological Research 42/166 (January 1992) 95-98.Roy Sorensen - unknown -
Suitable Properties for Any Electronic Voting System.Jean-Luc Koning & Didier Dubois - 2006 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 14 (4):251-260.
Deception Research Involving Children: Ethical Practices and Paradoxes.Celia B. Fisher - 2005 - Ethics and Behavior 15 (3):271 – 287.
Paradoxes of Intensionality.Dustin Tucker & Richmond H. Thomason - 2011 - Review of Symbolic Logic 4 (3):394-411.
Sophisticated Voting Under the Sequential Voting by Veto.Fany Yuval - 2002 - Theory and Decision 53 (4):343-369.
Axiomatizing Collective Judgment Sets in a Minimal Logical Language.Marc Pauly - 2007 - Synthese 158 (2):233-250.
Resolving Paradoxes In Judgment Aggregation.Davide Rizza - 2012 - Philosophical Quarterly 62 (247):337-354.
Added to index2010-07-25
Total downloads21 ( #225,935 of 2,126,571 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #293,385 of 2,126,571 )
How can I increase my downloads?
There are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.