Distance rationalization of voting rules

被引:26
|
作者
Elkind, Edith [1 ]
Faliszewski, Piotr [2 ]
Slinko, Arkadii [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Oxford, Dept Comp Sci, Oxford, England
[2] AGH Univ Sci & Technol, Krakow, Poland
[3] Univ Auckland, Dept Math, Auckland 1, New Zealand
关键词
METRIC RATIONALIZATION; PREFERENCE STRUCTURES; SOCIAL CHOICE; PROXIMITY;
D O I
10.1007/s00355-015-0892-5
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
The concept of distance rationalizability allows one to define new voting rules or rationalize existing ones via a consensus, i.e., a class of elections that have a unique, indisputable winner, and a distance over elections: A candidate is declared an election winner if she is the consensus candidate in one of the nearest consensus elections. Many classic voting rules are defined or can be represented in this way. In this paper, we focus on the power and the limitations of the distance rationalizability approach. Lerer and Nitzan (J Econ Theory 37(1):191-201, 1985) and Campbell and Nitzan (Soc Choice Welf 3(1):1-16, 1986) show that if we do not place any restrictions on the notions of distance and consensus then essentially all voting rules can be distance-rationalized. We identify a natural class of distances on elections-votewise distances-which depend on the submitted votes in a simple and transparent manner, and investigate which voting rules can be rationalized via distances of this type. We also study axiomatic properties of rules that can be defined via votewise distances.
引用
收藏
页码:345 / 377
页数:33
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Distance rationalization of voting rules
    Edith Elkind
    Piotr Faliszewski
    Arkadii Slinko
    [J]. Social Choice and Welfare, 2015, 45 : 345 - 377
  • [2] Distance rationalization of anonymous and homogeneous voting rules
    Benjamin Hadjibeyli
    Mark C. Wilson
    [J]. Social Choice and Welfare, 2019, 52 : 559 - 583
  • [3] Distance rationalization of anonymous and homogeneous voting rules
    Hadjibeyli, Benjamin
    Wilson, Mark C.
    [J]. SOCIAL CHOICE AND WELFARE, 2019, 52 (03) : 559 - 583
  • [4] A distance-based comparison of basic voting rules
    Daniel Eckert
    Christian Klamler
    Johann Mitlöhner
    Christian Schlötterer
    [J]. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 2006, 14 (4) : 377 - 386
  • [5] Beyond rationalization: Voting out of duty or expressing duty after voting?
    Galais, Carol
    Blais, Andre
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW, 2016, 37 (02) : 213 - 229
  • [6] Polynomial Voting Rules
    Tang, Wenpin
    Yao, David D.
    [J]. MATHEMATICS OF OPERATIONS RESEARCH, 2024,
  • [7] IEEE VOTING RULES
    FEERST, I
    [J]. SCIENTIST, 1988, 2 (05): : 10 - 10
  • [8] Deliberation rules and voting
    Van Weelden, Richard
    [J]. QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, 2008, 3 (01) : 83 - 88
  • [9] Equitable Voting Rules
    Bartholdi, Laurent
    Hann-Caruthers, Wade
    Josyula, Maya
    Tamuz, Omer
    Yariv, Leeat
    [J]. ACM EC '19: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2019 ACM CONFERENCE ON ECONOMICS AND COMPUTATION, 2019, : 315 - 315
  • [10] OPTIMAL VOTING RULES
    YOUNG, P
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES, 1995, 9 (01): : 51 - 64