Linked bibliography for the SEP article "Voting Methods" by Eric Pacuit
This is an automatically generated and experimental page
If everything goes well, this page should display the bibliography of the aforementioned article as it appears in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, but with links added to PhilPapers records and Google Scholar for your convenience. Some bibliographies are not going to be represented correctly or fully up to date. In general, bibliographies of recent works are going to be much better linked than bibliographies of primary literature and older works. Entries with PhilPapers records have links on their titles. A green link indicates that the item is available online at least partially.
This experiment has been authorized by the editors of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The original article and bibliography can be found here.
- Alger, D., 2006, “Voting by proxy,” Public
Choice, 126(1–2): 1–26. (Scholar)
- Alos-Ferrer, C., 2006, “A simple characterization of
approval voting,” Social Choice and Welfare, 27:
621–625.
- Anscombe, G. E. M., 1976, “On frustration of the majority by fulfillment of the majority’s will,” Analysis, 36(4): 161–168. (Scholar)
- Aragones, E., I. Gilboa, and A. Weiss, 2011, “Making statements and approval voting,” Theory and Decision, 71:461–472. (Scholar)
- Arrow, K., 1963, Social Choice and Individual Values, New
Haven: Yale University Press, 2nd edition. (Scholar)
- Asan, G. and R. Sanver, 2002, “Another characterization of
the majority rule,” Economics Letters, 75(3):
409–413. (Scholar)
- Baigent, N., and Xu, Y., 1991, “Independent necessary and
sufficient conditions for approval voting,” Mathematical
Social Sciences, 21: 21–29. (Scholar)
- Balinski, M. and R. Laraki, 2007, “A theory of measuring,
electing and ranking,” Proceeding of the National Academy of
Sciences, 104(21): 8720–8725.
- –––, 2010, Majority Judgement: Measuring,
Ranking and Electing, Boston: MIT Press. (Scholar)
- Balinski, M. and R. Laraki, 2014, “What should “majority decision” mean?,” in Majority Decisions, (J. Elster and S. Novak eds.), pp. 103–131, Cambridge University Press.
(Scholar)
- Balinski, M. and H. P. Young, 1982, Fair Representation:
Meeting the Idea of One Man, One Vote, Yale University
Press. (Scholar)
- Bartholdi III, J. J., C. A. Tovey, and M. A. Trick, 1989, “The
computational difficulty of manipulating an election,”
Social Choice and Welfare, 6(3): 227–241. (Scholar)
- –––, 1989, “Voting schemes for which it
can be difficult to tell who won the election,” Social
Choice and Welfare, 6(2): 157–165. (Scholar)
- Bassett, G. and J. Persky, 1999, “Robust voting,”
Public Choice, 99(3-4): 299–310.
(Scholar)
- Behrens, J., 2017, “The origins of liquid democracy, ”
The Liquid Democracy Journal, 5(2): 7–17,
available online. (Scholar)
- Blum, C. and C. I. Zuber, 2016, “Liquid democracy: Potentials, problems, and perspectives,”Journal of Political Philosophy, 24(2): 162–182. (Scholar)
- Borda, J.-C. de, 1784, “Mémoire sur les
élections au scrutin par M. de Borda” in
Mémoires de l’Académie Royale des Sciences
année 1781, Paris: l’Imprimerie Royale, pp. 657–665;
Translated in McLean and Urken 1995, pp. 83–89. (Scholar)
- Brams, S., 2008, Mathematics and Democracy, Princeton:
Princeton University Press. (Scholar)
- Brams, S. and P. Fishburn, 2007 (2nd Edition), Approval
Voting, New York: Springer. (Scholar)
- –––, 2002, “Voting procedures,” in
Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, K. J. Arrow, A. K.
Sen, and K. Suzumura (eds.), Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 173–236.
(Scholar)
- Brams, S., P. Fishburn and S. Merrill III, 1988a, “The
responsiveness of approval voting: Comments on Saari and Van
Newenhizen,” Public Choice, 59(2): 121–131. (Scholar)
- –––, 1988b, “Rejoinder to Saari and Van
Newenhizen,” Public Choice, 59(2): 149. (Scholar)
- Brams, S., D. M. Kilgour D. M., and W. Zwicker, 1998, “The
paradox of multiple elections,” Social Choice and
Welfare, 15(2): 211–236. (Scholar)
- Brams, S. and R. Potthoff, 2015, “The paradox of grading
systems,” Public Choice, 165(3-4): 193–210. (Scholar)
- Brams, S. and Sanver, M. R., “Voting systems that combine
approval and preference,” in The Mathematics of Preference,
Choice, and Order: Essays in Honor of Peter C. Fishburn, S.
Brams, W. Gehrlein, and F. Roberts (eds.), pp.
215–237, Berlin: Springer. (Scholar)
- Brandt, F., 2017, “Rolling the dice: Recent results in
probabilistic social choice,” in Trends in Computational
Social Choice, U. Endriss (editor): 3–19. (Scholar)
- Brandt, F., C. Geist, and D. Peters, 2017, “Optimal bounds
for the no-show paradox via SAT solving,” Mathematical
Social Sciences, 90: 18–27. (Scholar)
- Brandt F., J. Hofbauer, and M. Strobel, 2019, “Exploring the
no-show paradox for Condorcet extensions using Ehrhart theory and
computer simulations,” in Proceedings of the 18th
International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems
(AAMAS), Montreal: AAAI Press. (Scholar)
- Brandt, F., V. Conitzer, and U. Endris, 2013, “Computational
social choice,” in G. Weiss, editor, Multiagent
Systems, pp. 213–283, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Scholar)
- Brandt, F., V. Conitzer, U. Endriss, J. Lang, and A. D. Procaccia,
editors, 2016, Handbook of Computational Social Choice,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Scholar)
- Brennan, J., 2016, “The ethics and rationality of
voting,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(Winter 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/voting/>. (Scholar)
- Brennan, G. and L. Lomasky, 1993, Democracy and Decision: The Pure Theory
of Electoral Preference, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(Scholar)
- Brill, M. and N. Talmon, 2018, “Pairwise liquid
democracy,” in Proceedings of the 27th International
Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), Stockholm: International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence. (Scholar)
- Boutilier, C., I. Caragiannis, S. Haber, T. Lu, A. Procaccia, and O. Sheffet, 2015, “Optimal social choice functions: A utilitarian view, ” Artificial Intelligence, 227: 190–213. (Scholar)
- Cato, S., 2014, “Independence of irrelevant alternatives revisited,” Theory and Decision 76(4): 511–527. (Scholar)
- Campbell, D. and J. Kelly, 2002, “Non-monotonicity does not
imply the no-show paradox,” Social Choice and Welfare,
19(3): 513–515. (Scholar)
- Chebotarev, P. and E. Shamis, 1998, “Characterization of
scoring methods for preference aggregation,” Annals of
Operations Research, 80: 299–332. (Scholar)
- Christiano, T., “Democracy,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <Democracy/">https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/Democracy/>. (Scholar)
- Christoff, Z. and D. Grossi, 2017, “Binary voting with
delegable proxy: An analysis of liquid democracy,” in
Proceedings of TARK 2017, Liverpool: Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science. (Scholar)
- Cohen, J., 1986, “An epistemic conception of democracy,” Ethics, 97(1): 26–38. (Scholar)
- Coleman,J. and J. Ferejohn, 1986, “Democracy and social choice,” Ethics, 97(1): 6–25. (Scholar)
- Condorcet, M.J.A.N. de C., Marque de, 1785, Essai sur
l’application de l’analyse à la probabilitié des
décisions rendues à la pluralité des voix,
Paris: l’Imprimerie Royale; Translated in Mclean and Urken 1995, pp.
91–113. (Scholar)
- Conitzer, V. and Wash, T., 2016, “Barriers to manipulation
in voting,” Chapter 6 in Handbook of Computational Social
Choice, 127–145, New York: Cambridge University Press. (Scholar)
- Conitzer, V. and T. Sandholm, 2005, “Common voting rules as
maximum likelihood estimators,” in Proceedings of the 21st
Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence
(UAI-05), pp. 145–152. (Scholar)
- Conitzer, V., M. Rognlie, and L. Xia, 2009, “Preference
functions that score rankings and maximum likelihood
estimation,” in 1st International Joint Conference on
Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-09), pp. 109–115, Pasadena: AAAI Press. (Scholar)
- Daudt, H. and D. W. Rae, 1976, “The Ostrogorski paradox: a
peculiarity of compound majority decision,” European Journal
of Political Research, 4(4): 391–399. (Scholar)
- Dietrich, F., 2008, “The premises of Condorcet’s jury
theorem are not simultaneously justified,” Episteme –
a Journal of Social Epistemology, 5(1): 56–73. (Scholar)
- Dietrich, F. and K. Spiekermann, 2013, “Epistemic democracy with defensible premises,” Economics & Philosophy, 29(1): 87–120. (Scholar)
- Dowding, K. and M. Van Hees, 2008, “In praise of
manipulation,” British Journal of Political Science,
38(1): 1–15. (Scholar)
- Driver, J., “The history of utilitarianism,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/utilitarianism-history/>. (Scholar)
- Duddy, C., 2014,“Condorcet’s principle and the strong
no-show paradoxes,” Theory and Decision,
77(2):275–285. (Scholar)
- Dummett, M., 1984, Voting Procedures, Oxford: Clarendon. (Scholar)
- Edelman, P. H., 2012a, “The institutional dimension of election design,” Public Choice, 153(3/4):287–293.
(Scholar)
- –––, 2012b, “Michel Balinski and Rida Laraki: Majority judgment: measuring, ranking, and electing,” Public Choice, 151:807–810.
(Scholar)
- Elkind, E., P. Faliszewski and A. Slinko, 2015, “Distance
rationalization of voting rules,” Social Choice and
Welfare, 45(2): 345–377. (Scholar)
- Endriss, U., 2011, “Logic and social choice theory,”
in Logic and Philosophy Today, J. van Benthem and A. Gupta
(eds.), London: College Publications. (Scholar)
- Endriss, U. (editor), 2017, Trends in Computational Social
Choice, Amsterdam: AI Access Publishers. (Scholar)
- Fabienne, P., 2013, “Political legitimacy,” The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 Edition), Edward
N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/legitimacy/>. (Scholar)
- Faliszewski, P. and A. Procaccia, 2010, “AI’s war on
manipulation: Are we winning?,” AI Magazine, 31(4):
53–64.
- Faliszewski, P., E. Hemaspaandra, and L. Hemaspaandra, 2010,
“Using complexity to protect elections,”
Communications of the ACM, 53(11): 74–82. (Scholar)
- Felsenthal, D., 2012, “Review of paradoxes afflicting
procedures for electing a single candidate,” in Electoral
Systems: Paradoxes, Assumptions and Paradoxes, pp. 19–91: Dordrecht,
Springer. (Scholar)
- Felsenthal, D. and M. Machover, 1998, The Measurement of
Voting Power: Theory and Practice, Problems and Paradoxes,
Cheltenham Glos: Edward Elgar Publishing. (Scholar)
- ––– (editors), 2012, Electoral
Systems: Paradoxes, Assumptions and Procedures, Dordrecht:
Springer. (Scholar)
- –––, 2008, “The majority judgment voting
procedure: A critical evaluation,” Homo Oeconomicus, 25(3/4):319–334.
(Scholar)
- Felsenthal, D. and H. Nurmi, 2017, Monotonicity Failures Afflicting Procedures for Electing a Single Candidate, SpringerBriefs in Economics, Dordrecht:Springer. (Scholar)
- Felsenthal, D. and N. Tideman, 2013, “Varieties of failure of monotonicity and participation under five voting methods,” Theory and Decision, 75(1): 59–77. (Scholar)
- Fishburn, P. and S. Brams, 1983, “Paradoxes of preferential
voting,” Mathematics Magazine, 56(4): 207–214. (Scholar)
- Fishburn, P., 1974, “Paradoxes of voting,”
American Political Science Review, 68(2): 537–546.
(Scholar)
- –––, 1977, “Condorcet social choice
functions,” SIAM Journal of Applied Mathematics, 33(3):
469–489. (Scholar)
- –––, 1978a, “Axioms for approval voting:
Direct proof,” Journal of Economic Theory, 19(1):
180–185. (Scholar)
- –––, 1978b, “Symmetric and consistent
aggregation with dichotomous preferences,” in Aggregation
and revelation of preferences, Amsterdam: North-Holland. (Scholar)
- –––, 1982, “Monotonicity paradoxes in the
theory of voting,” Discrete Applied Mathematics, 4:
119–134. (Scholar)
- Gaertner, W., 2006, A Primer in Social Choice Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Scholar)
- Gaertner, W. and Y. Xu, 2012, “A general scoring
rule,” Mathematical Social Sciences, 63:
193–196.
- Gardenfors, P., 1973, “Positionalist voting functions,” Theory and Decision, 4(1): 1–24. (Scholar)
- Gehrlein, W., 2006, Condorcet’s Paradox, Berlin:
Springer. (Scholar)
- Gehrlein, V. and D. Lepelley, 2003, “On some limitations of the median voting rule,” Public Choice, 117(1-2):177–190.
(Scholar)
- Gelman, A., J. Katz and F. Tuerlinckx, 2002, “The
mathematics and statistics of voting power, ” Statistical
Science, 17(4): 420–435. (Scholar)
- Gibbard, A., 1973, “Manipulation of voting schemes: A
general result,” Econometrica, 41(4):
587–601. (Scholar)
- Goeree, J. and J. Zhang, 2017, “One man, one bid,”
Games and Economic Behavior, 101(C): 151–171. (Scholar)
- Golz, P., A. Kahng, S. Mackenzie, and A. Procaaccia, 2018,
“The fluid mechanics of liquid democracy”, in
Proceedings of WINE: Web and Internet Economics, 188–202: Oxford, Springer. (Scholar)
- Goodin, R. and C. List, 2006, “A conditional defense of plurality rule: generalizing May’s theorem in a restricted informational environment,” American journal of political science, 50(4): 940–949. (Scholar)
- Goodin, R. and K. Spiekermann, 2018, “An Epistemic Theory of Democracy,” Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Scholar)
- Green-Armytage, J., 2015, “Direct voting and proxy
voting,” Constitutional Political Economy, 26(2):
190–220. (Scholar)
- Grofman, B. and S. Feld, 2004, “If you like the alternative
vote (a.k.a. the instant runoff), then you ought to know about the
Coombs rule,” Electoral Studies, 23:
641–659. (Scholar)
- Groves, T., and J. Ledyard, 1977, “Optimal allocation of
public goods: A solution to the free rider problem,”
Econometrica, 45(4): 783–810. (Scholar)
- Hansson, S. O. and Grüne-Yanoff, T., “Preferences,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <Preferences/">https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/Preferences/>. (Scholar)
- Hausman, D., 1995, “The impossibility of interpersonal utility comparisons,” Mind, 104(4): 473–490. (Scholar)
- Hylland, A., and R. Zeckhauser, 1980, “A mechanism for
selecting public goods when preferences must be elicited,”
Kennedy School of Government Discussion Paper , 70D: Boston, Harvard University.
- Jimeno J. L., J. Perez and E. Garcia, 2009, “An extension of
the Moulin no show paradox for voting correspondences,”
Social Choice and Welfare, 33(3): 343–359. (Scholar)
- Kang, A., S. Mackenzie and A. Procaccia, 2018, “Liquid
democracy: An algorithmic perspective,” in Proceedings of 32nd
AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence: 1095–1102: New Orleans, AAAI Press. (Scholar)
- Kelly, J.S., 1989, “The Ostrogorski’s paradox,”
Social Choice and Welfare, 6(1): 71–76. (Scholar)
-
Lacy, D. and E. Niou, 2000, “A problem with referenda,” Journal of Theoretical Politics, 12(1):5–31.
2000.
- Lalley, S. and E. G. Weyl, 2018a, “Quadratic voting: How
mechanism design can radicalize democracy,” AEA Papers and Proceedings, 108: 33–37. (Scholar)
-
Lang, J. and L. Xia, 2009, “Sequential composition of voting rules in multi-issue domains,” Mathematical
Social Sciences, 57(3): 304–324.
(Scholar)
- Laslier, J.-F., 2011, “Lessons from in situ
experiments during French elections,” in In Situ and
Laboratory Experiments on Electoral Law Reform: French Presidential
Elections, B. Dolez, B. Grofman and A. Laurent (eds.), Berlin:
Springer, pp. 91–104. (Scholar)
- –––, 2010, “Laboratory experiments about
approval voting” in Handbook of Approval Voting, J.-F.
Laslier and R. Sanver (eds.), Berlin: Springer, pp. 339–356.
(Scholar)
- –––, 2011, “On choosing the alternative with the best median evaluation,” Public Choice, 153(3): 269–277.
(Scholar)
- –––, 2012, “And the loser is...Plurality
voting” in Electoral Systems: Paradoxes, Assumptions and
Procedures, D. S. Felsenthal and M. Machover (eds.), Berlin:
Springer, pp. 327–351. (Scholar)
- Laslier, J.-F. and R. Sanver (eds.), 2010, Handbook on
Approval Voting, Series: Studies in Choice and Welfare, Berlin:
Springer. (Scholar)
- Laurence, B. and I. Sher, 2017, “Ethical considerations on quadratic voting,” Public Choice, 172:195–222. (Scholar)
- Levin, J. and B. Nalebuff, 1995, “An introduction to
vote-counting schemes,” Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 9(1): 3–26. (Scholar)
- List, C., 2013, “Social choice theory,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/social-choice/>. (Scholar)
- –––, 2006, “The discursive dilemma and public reason,” Ethics, 116(2): 362–402. (Scholar)
- –––, 2018, “Democratic deliberation and social choice: A review,” in Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy, Oxford University Press. (Scholar)
- List, C. and R. Goodin, 2001, “Epistemic democracy: Generalizing the Condorcet jury theorem,” Journal of Political Philosophy, 9(3): 277–306. (Scholar)
- List, C., R. C. Luskin, J. S. Fishkin and I. McLean, 2013, “Deliberation, single-peakedness, and the possibility of meaningful democracy: Evidence from deliberative polls,” Journal of Politics, 75(1): 80–95. (Scholar)
- Mace, A., 2018, “Voting with evaluations: Characterizations
of evaluative voting and range voting,” Journal of
Mathematical Economics, 79: 10–17. (Scholar)
- Mackie, G., 2003, Democracy Defended, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Scholar)
- Malinas, G. and J. Bigelow, “Simpson’s paradox,”
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 Edition),
Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/paradox-simpson/>. (Scholar)
- Maskin, E., 1995, “Majority rule, social welfare functions
and game forms,” in Choice, Welfare and Development: A
Festschrift in Honour of Amartya K. Sen, K. Basu, P. Pattanaik,
K. Suzumura (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.
100–109. (Scholar)
- May, K., 1952, “A set of independent necessary and
sufficient conditions for simply majority decision,”
Econometrica, 20(4): 680–684.
- McLean, I. and A. Urken (eds.), 1995, Classics of Social
Choice, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. (Scholar)
- Merlin, V., 2003, “ The axiomatic characterizations of
majority voting and scoring rules, Mathematical Social
Sciences, 161: 87–109. (Scholar)
- Miller, J., 1969, “A program for direct and proxy voting in
the legislative process,” Public Choice,
7(1):107–113.
- Morreau, M., 2014, “Arrow’s theorem,” The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta
(ed.), URL =
<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/arrows-theorem/>. (Scholar)
- Morreau, M., 2016, “Grading in groups,” Economics & Philosophy, 32(2):323–352. (Scholar)
- Moulin, H., 1983, The Strategy of Social Choice,
Amsterdam: North-Holland. (Scholar)
- –––, 1988, “Condorcet’s principle implies
the no show paradox,” Journal of Economic Theory,, 45:
53–64. (Scholar)
- Myerson, R., 1995, “Axiomatic derivation of scoring rules
without the ordering assumption,” Social Choice and
Welfare, 12(1): 59–74. (Scholar)
- Nitzan, S., 2010, Collective Preference and Choice,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Scholar)
- Nitzan, S. and A. Rubinstein, 1981, “A further characterization of Borda ranking method,” Public Choice, 36(1): 153–158. (Scholar)
- Niou, E. M. S., 1987, “ A note on Nanson’s rule,”
Public Choice, 54: 191–193. (Scholar)
- Nunez, M. and M. R. Sanver, 2017, “Revisiting the connection
between the no-show paradox and monotonicity”, Mathematical
Social Sciences, 90: 9–17. (Scholar)
- Nurmi, H., 1987, Comparing Voting Systems, Dordrecht: D.
Reidel. (Scholar)
- –––, 1999, Voting Paradoxes and How to Deal
with Them, Berlin: Springer-Verlag. (Scholar)
- –––, 2010, “Voting theory,” in
e-Democracy: A Group Decision and Negotiation Perspective, D.
R. Insua and S. French (eds.), Berlin: Springer, pp. 101–124.
(Scholar)
- Ostorogorski, M., 1902, Democracy and the Organization of
Political Parties, London: Macmillan. (Scholar)
- Pauly, M., 2008, “On the role of language in social choice theory,” Synthese, 163(2): 227–243. (Scholar)
- Perez, J., 2001, “The strong no show paradoxes are a common
flaw in Condorcet voting correspondences,” Social Choice and
Welfare, 18: 601–616 (Scholar)
- Pigozzi, G., 2005, “Two aggregation paradoxes in social decision making: the Ostrogorski paradox and the discursive dilemma,” Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology, 2(2): 33–42. (Scholar)
- Pivato, M., 2013, “Variable-population voting rules,”
Journal of Mathematical Economics, 49: 210–221. (Scholar)
- –––, 2013, “Voting rules as statistical
estimators,” Social Choice and Welfare, 40(2):
581–630. (Scholar)
- –––, 2014, “Formal utilitarianism and
range voting,” Mathematical Social Sciences, 67:
50–56. (Scholar)
- –––, 2015, “Condorcet meets
Bentham,” Journal of Mathematical Economics, 59:
58–65. (Scholar)
- E. Posner and E. G. Weyl, 2015, “Voting squared: Quadratic
voting in democratic politics,” Vanderbilt Law Review,
68(2): 441–499. (Scholar)
- –––, 2017, “Quadratic voting and the
public good: Introduction,”Public Choice (Special
Issue: Quadratic Voting and the Public Good), 172(1-2):
1–22. (Scholar)
- Poundstone, W., 2008, Gaming the Vote: Why Elections aren’t
Fair (and What We Can Do About It), New York: Hill and Wang
Press. (Scholar)
- Pukelsheim, F., 2017, Proportional Representation:
Apportionment Methods and Their Applications, Dordrecht:
Springer. (Scholar)
- Procaccio, A., N. Shah, and Y. Zick, 2016, “Voting rules as
error-correcting codes,” Artificial Intelligence, 231:
1–16. (Scholar)
- Regenwetter, M., B. Grofman, A.A.J. Marley, A.A.J. and I. Tsetlin,
2006, Behavioral Social Choice: Probabilistic Models, Statistical
Inference, and Applications, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. (Scholar)
- Regenwetter, M., B. Grofman, A. Popova, W. Messner, C.
Davis-Stober, and D. Cavagnaro, 2009, “Behavioural social
choice: A status report,” Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society B, 364(1518): 833–843. (Scholar)
- Reijngoud, A. and U. Endriss, 2012, “Voter response to iterated poll information,” In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS-2012): 635–644, Valencia, Spain, International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.
(Scholar)
- Riker, W., 1982, Liberalism against Populism: A Confrontation
between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice,
San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Co. (Scholar)
- Risse, M., 2001, “Arrow’s theorem, indeterminacy, and
multiplicity reconsidered,” Ethics, 111:
706–734. (Scholar)
- –––, 2004, “Arguing for majority rule,” Journal of Political Philosophy, 1(1): 41–64. (Scholar)
- –––, 2005, “Why the count de Borda cannot beat the Marquis de Condorcet,” Social Choice and Welfare, 25: 95–113. (Scholar)
- Saari, D., 1989, “A dictionary of voting paradoxes,”
Journal of Economic Theory, 48(2): 443–475.
- –––, 1995, Basic Geometry of Voting,
Berlin: Springer. (Scholar)
- –––, 2000, “Mathematical structure of
voting paradoxes: II. Positional voting,” Economic
Theory, 15(1): 55–102. (Scholar)
- –––, 2001, Decisions and Elections:
Explaining the Unexpected, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(Scholar)
- –––, 2003, “Capturing the ‘will of
the people’,” Ethics, 113: 333–334. (Scholar)
- –––, “Which is better: the Condorcet or
Borda winner?,”Social Choice and Welfare, 26:
107–129. (Scholar)
- –––, 2008, Disposing Dictators, Demystifying
Voting Paradoxes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Scholar)
- Saari, D. and J. Van Newenhizen, 1988a, “The problem of
indeterminacy in approval, multiple, and truncated voting
systems,” Public Choice, 59(2): 101–120. (Scholar)
- –––, 1988b, “Is approval voting an
‘unmitigated evil’: A response to Brams, Fishburn, and
Merrill,” Public Choice, 59(2): 133–147. (Scholar)
- Santoro, L. R. and P. Beck, 2017, “Social networks and vote choice, ” in The Oxford Handbook of Political Networks, Oxford University Press.
(Scholar)
- Sanver, M. R., and W. Zwicker, 2012, “Monotonicity
properties and their adaption to irresolute social choice
rules,” Social Choice and Welfare, 39:
371–398. (Scholar)
- Satterthwaite, M., 1975, “Strategy-proofness and Arrow’s
conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting
procedures and social welfare functions,” Journal of
Economic Theory, 10(2): 198–217. (Scholar)
- M. Scarsini, 1998, “A strong paradox of multiple
elections,” Social Choice and Welfare, 15(2):
237–238.
- Schwartz, T., 1986, The Logic of Collective Choice, New
York: Columbia University Press. (Scholar)
- –––, 2018, Cycles and Social Choice: The
True and Unabridged Story of a Most Protean Paradox, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. (Scholar)
- Sinnott-Armstrong, W., “Consequentialism,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <Consequentialism/">https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2019/entries/Consequentialism/>. (Scholar)
- Stirling, W., 2016, Theory of Social Choice on Networks, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(Scholar)
- Taylor, A., 2005, Social Choice and the Mathematics of
Manipulation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Scholar)
- Tsetlin, I., M. Regenwetter, and B. Grofman, 2003, “The
impartial culture maximizes the probability of majority cycles,”
Social Choice and Welfare, 21(3): 387–398. (Scholar)
- Wagner, C., 1983, “Anscombe’s paradox and the rule of
three-fourths,” Theory and Decision, 15(3):
303–308. (Scholar)
- –––, 1984, “Avoiding Anscombe’s
paradox,” Theory and Decision, 16(3): 233–238.
(Scholar)
- Walsh, T., 2011, “Is computational complexity a barrier to
manipulation?, ”Annals of Mathematics and Artificial
Intelligence, 62(1-2): 7–26. (Scholar)
- Wodak, D., 2019, “The expressive case against plurality rule,” Journal of Political Philosophy, 1–25. (Scholar)
- Woeginger, G., 2003, “A new characterization of the majority
rule,” Economic Letters, 81(1): 89–94.
- Xia, L., 2016, “Bayesian estimators as voting rules, ”
in Proceeding UAI’16 Proceedings of the Thirty-Second Conference
on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 785–794: New Jersey, AUAI Press. (Scholar)
- Xia, L., V. Conitzer and J. Lang, 2010, “Aggregating
preferences in multi-issue domains by using maximum likelihood
estimator,” in 9th International Joint Conference on
Autonomous Agents and Multi Agent Systems (AAMAS-10),
399–406: Toronto, International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. (Scholar)
- Xia, L., J. Lang, and M. Ying, 2007, “Sequential voting rules and
multiple elections paradoxes,” in Proceedings of the
Eleventh Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and
Knowledge (TARK-07), 279–288: Brussels, ACM Publishers. (Scholar)
- Young, H.P., 1995, “Optimal voting rules,” Journal
of Economic Perspectives, 9(1): 51–64. (Scholar)
- –––, 1998, “Condorcet’s theory of
voting,” American Political Science Review, 82(4):
1231–1233. (Scholar)
- –––, 1975, “Social choice scoring
functions,” SIAM Journal of Applied Mathematics, 28(4):
824–838. (Scholar)
- Zhang, B. and H. Zhou, 2017, “Brief announcement: Statement
voting and liquid democracy,” in Proceedings of the 36th ACM
Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC),
359–361: Washington DC, ACM Publishers. (Scholar)
- Zwicker, W., 2016, “Introduction to the theory of
voting,” in Handbook of Computational Social Choice, V.
Conitzer, U. Endriss, J. Lang and A. Procaccia (eds.),
23–56, Boston: Cambridge University Press. (Scholar)