Other Incompatibility Paradoxes

William V. Gehrlein () and Dominique Lepelley
Additional contact information
William V. Gehrlein: University of Delaware

Chapter Chapter 3 in Voting Paradoxes and Group Coherence, 2011, pp 81-121 from Springer

Abstract: Abstract The notion of Incompatibility Paradoxes was introduced in Chap. 1 , where they were defined as representing situations in which there are multiple possible definitions of what constitutes the best candidate for selection as the winner from a set of available candidates, and where these multiple definitions cannot be simultaneously met by a voting rule. Condorcet’s Paradox is one such outcome, and we have already discussed that in detail, to see that the likelihood that this paradox is observed consistently decreases as the degree of group mutual coherence increases. We now consider the two remaining incompatibility paradoxes, Borda’s Paradox and Condorcet’s Other Paradox. We start our analysis by looking for a relationship between the probability that Borda’s Paradox is observed and the degree of group mutual coherence that is present in a voting situation.

Keywords: Conditional Probability; Vote Rule; Preference Ranking; Counterintuitive Result; Vote Situation (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2011
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:stcchp:978-3-642-03107-6_3

Ordering information: This item can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/9783642031076

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-03107-6_3

Access Statistics for this chapter

More chapters in Studies in Choice and Welfare from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().