Skip to main content

A Geometric Approach to Paradoxes of Majority Voting in Abstract Aggregation Theory

  • Conference paper
Algorithmic Decision Theory (ADT 2009)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 5783))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 1050 Accesses

Abstract

In this paper we extend Saari’s geometric approach to paradoxes of preference aggregation to the analysis of paradoxes of majority voting in a more general setting like Anscombe’s paradox and paradoxes of judgment aggregation. In particular we use Saari’s representation cubes to provide a geometric representation of profiles and majority outcomes. Within this geometric framework, we show how profile decompositions can be used to derive restrictions on profiles that avoid the paradoxes of majority voting.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brams, S.J., Kilgour, M.D., Sanver, M.R.: A minimax procedure for negotiating multilateral treaties. In: Wiberg, M. (ed.) Reasoned choices: Essays in Honor of Hannu Nurmi. Finnish Political Science Association, Turku (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Dietrich, F., List, C.: Majority voting on restricted domains. Mimeo (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Dokow, E., Holzman, R.: Aggregation of binary evaluations. Journal of Economic Theory (2008), doi:10.1016/j.jet.2007.10.004

    Google Scholar 

  4. List, C.: The probability of inconsistencies in complex collective decisions. Social Choice and Welfare 24, 3–32 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. List, C., Puppe, C.: Judgment aggregation. In: Anand, P., Pattanaik, P.K., Puppe, C. (eds.) The Handbook of Rational and Social Choice: An Overview of New Foundations and Applications. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Nurmi, H.: Comparing voting systems. D. Reidel, Dordrecht (1987)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Nurmi, H.: Voting paradoxes and how to deal with them. Springer, Berlin (1999)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. Rubinstein, A., Fishburn, P.C.: Algebraic aggregation theory. Journal of Economic Theory 38, 63–77 (1986)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Saari, D.G.: Basic geometry of voting. Springer, Berlin (1995)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. Saari, D.G.: Disposing dictators, demystifying voting paradoxes: Social choice analysis. Cambridge University Press, New York (2008)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Wilson, R.: On the theory of aggregation. Journal of Economic Theory 10, 89–99 (1975)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Eckert, D., Klamler, C. (2009). A Geometric Approach to Paradoxes of Majority Voting in Abstract Aggregation Theory. In: Rossi, F., Tsoukias, A. (eds) Algorithmic Decision Theory. ADT 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 5783. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04428-1_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04428-1_2

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-04427-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-04428-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics