Zero-sum condition: A necessary and sufficient condition for a transitive voting system

A simple and quick way to ascertain whether or not any given majority voting system can always produce a transitive social preference orderings without imposing any restriction on the distribution of diverse individual preference orderings is to examine whether all individual voting (preference) vectors satisfy the Addition Rule or not. This conclusion was obtained by first reformulating the voting mechanism into that of a linear mapping from T^m defined by q = Σp_i. It was found that the subset P of T that can accommodate all possible individual preference ordering profiles and such that every sum vector q = Σ p_i of its member vectors p_i is contained in T can be expressed as P = {p: p∈ T, s(p) = 0}. It was also pointed out that this is equivalent to the requirement that all individual preference (voting) functions must satisfy the Addition Rule. Finally, Borda's Rule and Saposnik's Contributive Rule were shown to be examples of transitive voting rules which satisfy these necessary and sufficient conditions.     

The expected probability of Condorcet's paradox

Let P(n,p) be the probability that there is a Condorcet winner on three alternatives for n (odd) voters. The vector p defines the probability that a randomly selected voter will have any of the six linear rankings on three alternatives as his or her preference ranking. It is shown that if all p vectors are equally likely, the expected value of P(n,p) is given by 15(n+3)²/[16(n+2)(n+4)].     

Essential aggregation procedures on restricted domains of preferences

The restricted domains of individuals' preferences that permit the construction of Arrow social welfare functions and nonmanipulable voting procedures in which each of n voters has some power are characterized. In this context a domain is the Cartesian product of n sets of strict preference orderings. Variants of this result are obtained under the additional requirement of neutrality and in the case when alternatives are vectors whose ith components affect only the ith voter. Kalai and Muller's analogous result (J. Econ. Theory16 (1977), 457–469) concerning nondictatorial procedures is discussed and proved as a corollary to the main theorem.     

Price characterization of stable allocations in exchange economies with externalities

A pure exchange economy where the consumers have utility functions U_i(v₁(x₁),…, v_m(x_m)) for i = 1,…, m and where x_j is the consumption of consumer j, is studied. U_i may be nonincreasing or nondecreasing in v_j for j ≠ i. i is said to be nonbenevolent or nonmalevolent towards j, accordingly.An allocation is stable if no coalition can redistribute what it receives in the allocation to get an allocation which is preferred, given the consumptions of the consumers in the complementary coalition. Results concerning the relation among the Paretooptimal, stable and equilibrium allocations (under different definitions of equilibrium) are given. In particular, it turns out that in case every consumer is non-benevolent towards every other consumer, the classical results, concerning the relation between Paretooptimal allocations and equilibrium allocations, can be generalized in a satisfactory way.     

Manipulation through political endorsements

We study elections with three candidates under plurality voting. A candidate is a Condorcet loser if the majority of the voters place that candidate at the bottom of their preference rankings. We first show that a Condorcet loser might win the election in a three-way race. Next we introduce to the model an endorser who has private information about the true probability distribution of the preferences of the voters. Observable endorsements facilitate coordination among voters who may otherwise split their votes and lead to the victory of the Condorcet loser. When the endorser has an ideological bias towards one of the candidates, the coordination impact of endorsements remains unaltered, moreover the endorser successfully manipulates the outcome of the election in favor of his bias, even if his ideological bias is known by the voters. The results are true for any endorsement cost and any magnitude of bias as long as the electorate is large enough.     

Redistributive policies with heterogeneous social preferences of voters

There is growing evidence on the roles of fairness and other-regarding preferences as fundamental human motives. Call voters with fair preferences, as in Fehr and Schmidt (1999), fair-voters. By contrast, traditional political economy models are based on selfish-voters who derive utility solely from “own” payoff. In a general equilibrium model with endogenous labor supply, a mixture of fair and selfish voters choose optimal policy through majority voting. First, we show that majority voting produces a unique winner in pairwise contests over feasible policies (the Condorcet winner). Second, we show that a preference for greater fairness leads to greater redistribution. An increase in the number of fair voters can also lead to greater redistribution. Third, we show that in economies where the majority are selfish-voters, the decisive policy could be chosen by fair-voters, and vice versa. Fourth, while choosing labor supply, even fair voters behave exactly like selfish voters. We show how this apparently inconsistent behavior in different domains (voting and labor supply) can be rationalized within the model.     

STRATEGIC CANDIDACY AND SINGLE‐PEAKEDNESS*

In elections, the voting outcomes are affected by strategic entries of candidates. We study a class of voting rules immune to strategic candidacy. Dutta et al. (2001 ) show that such rules satisfying unanimity are dictatorial if all orderings of candidates are admissible for voters’ preferences. When voters’ preferences are single‐peaked over a political spectrum, there exist non‐dictatorial rules immune to strategic candidacy. An example is the rule selecting the m‐th peak from the left among the peaks of voters’ preferences, where m is any natural number no more than the number of voters. We show that immunity from strategic candidacy with basic axioms fully characterizes the family of the m‐th leftmost peak rules.     

Condorcet cycles in bipartite populations

Summary. Simple majority voting between pairs of alternatives is used to aggregate individual preferences. The occurence of Condorcet cycles is limited thanks to a principle of homogeneity on individual preferences. The restrictions induced on the domain of the latters are weak: among the n! possible orderings of n alternatives, more than one half are admissible within a domain. The resulting aggregated preference has then a neglectable probability of showing up cycles. We show moreover that the set of individual preferences can be `naturally' partitioned into two such domains. Received: June 17, 1996; revised version: April 15, 1997     

A note on the fundamental theorem of exact aggregation

If individual i's demands for a commodity are a function of prices, p, income M_i and a vector of attributes A_i, then aggregate demand is

This paper derives the necessary and sufficient conditions of f_i, F and a system of functions g_k(M₁,…,M_N,A₁,…,A_N) symmetric in the M's and A's such that F can be written in the form F(p, g, (M₁,…,M_n,A₁,…,A_N),…, g_n(M₁,…,M_n,A₁,… ,A_n)) for all values of its arguments.     

Core allocations and the dimension of the cone of efficiency price vectors

Let (R₁,…,R_k) be an arbitrary partition of the grand coalition in an atomless exchange economy with k “large enough.” We prove that an optimal allocation x belongs to the core if and only if x cannot be improved upon by any coalition that includes at least one of the R_i's. K is “large enough” if k ? r + 1, where r is the linear dimension of the cone P of the efficiency price vectors for x. Recall that it is always true that r ? n, when n is the number of commodities in the market, and that under differentiability and interiority r = 1; thus k can be chosen to be 2 (i.e., for any coalition R, an allocation x belongs to the core of the market if and only if x is not blocked by any coalition that either contains R or contains its complement).     

Resource egalitarianism with a dash of efficiency

We study the problem of defining inequality-averse social orderings over allocations of commodities when individuals have different preferences. We formulate a notion of egalitarianism based on the axiom that any dominance between consumption bundles should be reduced. This Dominance Aversion requirement is compatible with Consensus, a version of the Pareto principle saying that an allocation y is better than x whenever everybody finds that everyone?s bundle at y is better than at x. We characterize a family of multidimensional leximin orderings satisfying Dominance Aversion and Consensus.     

A strategy-proofness characterization of majority rule

Summary. A feasible alternative x is a strong Condorcet winner if for every other feasible alternative y there is some majority coalition that prefers x to y. Let (resp., denote the set of all profiles of linear (resp., merely asymmetric) individual preference relations for which a strong Condorcet winner exists. Majority rule is the only non-dictatorial and strategy-proof social choice rule with domain , and majority rule is the only strategy-proof rule with domain . Received: August 29, 2000; revised version: November 13, 2002 RID="*" ID="*"We are grateful to Wulf Gaertner and our two referees for insightful comments on a previous draft. Correspondence to: D. E. Campbell     

Apportioning of risks via stochastic dominance

Consider a simple two-state risk with equal probabilities for the two states. In particular, assume that the random wealth variable dominates via ith-order stochastic dominance for i=M,N. We show that the 50-50 lottery dominates the lottery via (N+M)th-order stochastic dominance. The basic idea is that a decision maker exhibiting (N+M)th-order stochastic dominance preference will allocate the state-contingent lotteries in such a way as not to group the two “bad” lotteries in the same state, where “bad” is defined via ith-order stochastic dominance. In this way, we can extend and generalize existing results about risk attitudes. This lottery preference includes behavior exhibiting higher-order risk effects, such as precautionary effects and tempering effects.     

Cheap talk in games with incomplete information

The paper studies Bayesian games which are extended by adding pre-play communication. Let Γ be a Bayesian game with full support and with three or more players. The main result is that if players can send private messages to each other and make public announcements then every communication equilibrium outcome, q, that is rational (i.e., involves probabilities that are rational numbers) can be implemented in a sequential equilibrium of a cheap talk extension of Γ, provided that the following condition is satisfied: There exists a Bayesian Nash equilibrium s in Γ such that for each type t_i of each player i the expected payoff of t_i in q is larger than the expected payoff of t_i in s.     

Majority committees

Suppose an m-member committee is to be selected by a set of voters from a set X of M > m nominees. If A is an m-member committee, and if as many voters prefer A to B as prefer B to A for every other committee B of m nominees, then A is a majority committee of size m. Although the existence of majority nominees (m = 1) has been extensively analyzed, little attention has been given to conditions that imply the existence of majority committees of size m ? 2. Known restrictions on voters' preferences on X that guarntee the existence of a majority nominee could be applied directly to voters' preferences on m-member committees. However, this definitional exercise lacks intuitive appeal, and a different approach is taken in this paper. The paper presumes that profiles of voters' preferences on X are either dichotomous or single peaked. Both cases ensure the existence of a majority nominee. Independence-monotonicity assumptions are then used to connect voters' preferences on X to their preferences on committees of equal size. Although these assumptions guarantee the existence of majority committees when m = 1 and when m = M ? 1, they do not generally do so when 1 < m < M ? 1. The latter observation motivates additional restrictions on profiles. In the dichotomous case, we consider profiles in which all voters have the same number k of nominees in their preferred subsets, and show that this restriction guarantees the existence of a majority committee of size m for 1 < m < M ? 1 only when k = 1 or k = M ? 1. In the single-peaked case, we consider profiles in which all voters have the same most-preferred (peak) nominee, and prove that this guarantees the existence of a majority committee of size m for every m between 1 and M ? 1.     

Strategic candidacy for multivalued voting procedures

Dutta et al. (Econometrica 69 (2001) 1013) (Dutta, Jackson, and Le Breton—DJLeB) initiate the study of manipulation of voting procedures by a candidate who withdraws from the election. A voting procedure is candidate stable if this is never possible. We extend the DJLeB framework by allowing: (a) the outcome of the procedure to be a set of candidates; (b) some or all of the voters to have weak preference orderings of the candidates. When there are at least three candidates, any strongly candidate stable voting selection satisfying a weak unanimity condition is characterized by a serial dictatorship. This result generalizes Theorem 4 of DJLeB.     

Comparison of Scoring Rules in Poisson Voting Games

Scoring rules are compared by their equilibria in simple voting games with Poisson population uncertainty, using new techniques for computing pivot probabilities. Best-rewarding rules like plurality voting can generate discriminatory equilibria where the voters disregard some candidate as not a serious contender, although he may be universally liked, or may be symmetric to other candidates as in the Condorcet cycle. Such discriminatory equilibria are eliminated by worst-punishing rules like negative voting, but then even a universally disliked candidate may have to be taken seriously. In simple bipolar elections, equilibria are always majoritarian and efficient under approval voting, but not other scoring rules. Journal of Economic Literature Classification: D72.     

Remarks on the application of statistical games to technological development forecasting

This work presents the probability of determining a quantitative forecast of technological development S(t) defined by a set m of parameters S⁽¹⁾(t),S⁽²⁾(t),…,S^(m)(t), based on statistical game theory. Assuming that the coordinates S⁽ⁱ⁾(t) (i = 1, 2,…,m) of a forecasted vector S(t) are stochastic processes with given probabilistic characteristics, a formula of a function forecasting the value of a coordinate S⁽ⁱ⁾(t) of this vector can be obtained. This formula permits to determine a vector of forecasts _τT(x) of technological development S(t) at a given moment t = τ+T.     

Unequal inequalities. II

This paper analyzes properties of measures of inequality, applied to income inequalities but meaningful for practically any measure of dispersion in economics. We call n the number of persons, i the person's index, x_i person i's income, $\text{x}\text{= Σ(}\text{x}{}_{\mathrm{i}}\text{n}\text{)}$ the average income, x the vector of the x_i's or income distribution, I(x) a real-valued function of x which is the measure (or index) of inequality.Part I (Sects. I–V), which appeared in the last issue of this journal, analyzed several structures or properties, and specific forms, of I. We distinguished several I's: the measures of inequality per person (or “absolute”) I^a, per pound (or “relative”) $\text{I}{}^{\mathrm{r}}\text{=}\text{I}{}^{\mathrm{a}}\text{x}$, and total nI^a. We presented several possible properties of inequality measures, such as: I = 0 if all x_i's are equal (“zero at equality”), I > 0 otherwise (“positivity out of equality”), symmetry of I for x (“impartiality”), $\text{((}\text{?I}\text{?x}{}_{\mathrm{i}}\text{) ? (}\text{?I}\text{?x}{}_{\mathrm{i}}\text{))(x}{}_{\mathrm{i}}\text{? x}{}_{\mathrm{j}}\text{) > 0}$ for x_i ≠ x_j (“rectifiance” of the function I, or “transfers principle,” this being the strict form whereas the weak one is with sign ?), the fact that $\text{(}\text{?(}\text{x}\text{? I}{}^{\mathrm{a}}\text{)}\text{?}{}_{\mathrm{i}}\text{)}\text{(}\text{?(}\text{x}\text{? I}{}^{\mathrm{a}}\text{)}\text{?}{}_{\mathrm{j}}\text{)}$ does not depend upon x_k for k ≠ i,j (“welfare independence,” or, for short, “independence”). Rectifiance plus symmetry is Schur-convexity. Independence plus symmetry plus zero at equality implies that $\text{x}\text{≡}\text{x}\text{? I}{}^{\mathrm{a}}\text{= ?}{}^{\mathrm{?1}}\text{[(}\text{1}\text{n}\text{) Σ ?(x}{}_{\mathrm{i}}\text{)]}$ where $\text{x}$ is the “equal equivalent income”; and we will show that, these three properties being satisfied, the following ones are equivalent to each other: positivity out of equality, rectifiance, quasi-convexity, ?'s concavity.Part I largely focused on the study of six related specific measures of inequality, which in particular possess all the above properties: ?, α, and Ξ being positive parameters, they are $\text{I}{}_{\mathrm{c}}{}^{\mathrm{a}}\text{=}\text{x}\text{+ξ ? [(}\text{1}\text{n}\text{∑ (x}{}_{\mathrm{i}}\text{+ ξ)}{}^{\mathrm{1?epsi;}}\text{]}{}^{\mathrm{<mtext>1</mtext><mtext>1</mtext><mtext>??</mtext>}}$, $\text{I}{}_{\mathrm{c}}{}^{\mathrm{a}}\text{=}\text{x}\text{+ξ ? ∏ (x}{}_{\mathrm{i}}\text{+ ξ)}{}^{\mathrm{<mtext>1</mtext><mtext>n</mtext>}}$, $\text{I}{}_{\mathrm{c}}{}^{\mathrm{r}}\text{=}\text{I}{}_{\mathrm{c}}{}^{\mathrm{a}}\text{x}$, I_r=I_c^r for ξ=O, $\text{I}{}_{\mathrm{r}}{}^{\mathrm{a}}\text{=}\text{x}\text{I}{}_{\mathrm{r}}\text{=I}{}_{\mathrm{c}}{}^{\mathrm{a}}$ for ξ=, $\text{I}{}_{\mathrm{l}}\text{=(}\text{1}\text{α}\text{)}\text{log}\text{[(}\text{1}\text{n}\text{) ∑ eα·(x?x}{}_{\mathrm{i}}\text{)]}$ and $\text{I}{}_{\mathrm{l}}{}^{\mathrm{r}}\text{=}\text{I}{}_{\mathrm{l}}\text{x}$. Lower indices c, r, l respectively stand for “centrist,” “rightist,” and “leftist” measures of inequality. I_r and I_l are invariant under respectively equiproportional variation in, or equal addition to, all incomes; measures which have the first of these two properties are said to be “intensive.”We now consider different and more general measures, and other properties. We first reconcile the last two properties by dropping the “indepencence” one (Section VI.). Then, we analyze another mildly equalitarian property, the “principle of diminishing transfers” (Section VII). Section VIII turns to the relations between inequality measures and Lorenz and concentration curves. We then consider the effect on inequality of additions of incomes, and we analyze the properties of “diminishing equality” (Section IX). The effect of unions of populations is the topic of Section X. Finally, the last section (XI) presents the more general relations between the various structural properties of inequality measures.¹     

Counterexamples on the Superiority of Approval versus Plurality

We present a simple voting environment with three candidates where the Condorcet winner exists. Under plurality rule, the derived game has a stable set where such a candidate is elected with probability one. However, no stable set of the approval game elects the Condorcet winner with positive probability. We also analyze the robustness of such an example to changes in the number of voters and their preferences. To conclude, we present a generic four‐candidate voting environment with the same properties.