ON AXIOMATIZATION OF PLURALITY DECISIONS WITH VETO
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29015/cerem.225Keywords:
aggregation of preferences, axioms, power indicesAbstract
The article presents an analysis of the axioms associated with the plurality method of aggregation of individual preferences, both when it is necessary to select one of many alternatives and when it is necessary to approve a single alternative. Also, we investigate the impact of the introduction of a new attribute, being the right of veto (absolute and relative), on the axioms given. In the conclusion, the emphasis is that the commonly used method of aggregation, i.e. the plurality method is not, in this sense, the best method.References
Arrow K. J. (1951): Social Choice and Individual Values, Wiley, New York.
Aumann R. J. (1985): On the Non-Transferable Utility Value: A Comment on the Roth-Shafer Examples, Econometrica, Vol. 53, No.3, 667-678
Banzhaf J. F. III (1965): Weighted voting doesn’t work: a mathematical analysis, Rutgers Law Review 19, 317-343.
Bury H., Wagner D. (2008): Pozycyjne oceny grupowe dla obiektów równoważnych [w:] Badania operacyjne i systemowe (J. Owsiński, Z. Nahorski, T. Szapiro – red.) PTBOiS, 53-64.
Condorcet, de Marquis (1785): Essai sur l’application de l’analyse a la probabilite des elections rendues a la pluralite de voix, Imprimerie Royale, Paris.
Dubey A., Neyman R. J., Weber R. J. (1981): Value theory without efficiency. Mathematics of Operations Research vol. 6, 122-128.
Gärdenfors P. (1976): Manipulation of social choice function, J. Economic Theory, vol. 13, 217-228.
Gibbard A. (1973): Manipulation of voting schemes: a general result, Econometrica, vol. 41, 587-601.
Gilboa I., Postlewaite A., Schmeidler D. (2012): Rationality of belief or: why savage’s axioms are neither necessary nor sufficient for rationality, Synthese, Vol. 187, Issue 1, 11-31.
Johnston R.J. (1978) On the measurement of power: Some reactions to Lawer, Environment and Planning A, vol. 10, 907-914.
Lissowski G. (2008): Zasady sprawiedliwego podziału dóbr, Scholar, Warszawa.
May K. O. (1952): A set of independent necessary and sufficient conditions for simple majority decisions, Econometrica, vol. 20, 680-684.
Mercik J. (1990): Wybrane problemy decyzji grupowych, Wydawnictwo Politechniki Wrocławskiej, Wrocław.
Mercik J. W. (2009): A priori veto power of the president of Poland. Operations Research and Decisions, 19(4): 61-75.
Mercik J.W. (2011): On a priori evaluation of power of veto, [in:] Consensual Processes (Herrera-Viedma et al. eds), Springer, Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, 267, 145-158
Mercik J. (2015): Classification of committees with vetoes and conditions for the stability of power indices, Neurocomputing, vol. 149 (2015), Part C, 1143-1148.
Nurmi H., Uusi-Heikkilä Y. (1985): Computer simulations of approval and plurality voting: the frequency of weak Pareto violation and Condorcet loser choices in impartial cultures, European J. Political Economy, vol. 2/1, 47-59.
Ramsey D., Mercik J. (2015): A formal a priori power analysis of the Security Council of the United Nations [w:] Group Decisions and Negotiation Letters (B. Kamiński et. al. – eds), Warsaw School of Economics Press, Warsaw, 215-224.
Satterthwait M. A. (1975): Strategy proofness and Arrow’s conditions: existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions, Journal of Economic Theory, vol. 10, 187-217.
Shapley, L. S., Shubik, M. (1954), A method of evaluating the distribution of power in a committee system, American Political Science Review 48(3): 787-792.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
The aim of CEREM is to make scientific work available in accordance with the principle of open access. The rules mentioned below are important, as they enable CEREM and its publisher, the WSB Merito University in Wroclaw, to distribute the scientific work to a wide public while complying with specific legal requirements, at the same time protecting the rights of the authors.
The author transfers to the WSB Merito University in Wroclaw, free of charge and without territorial limitations, with all proprietary copyrights to the said piece of work in the understanding of the act of 4th February 1994 on copyrights and derivative rights (Journal of Laws of 1994, no. 24, item 83, as amended) on an exclusivity basis, i.e. the rights to:
1. Make the piece of work in question available via the Digital Library established by the WSB Merito University in Wroclaw.
2. Produce, record and reproduce in multiple copies the piece of work using any techniques whatsoever, including printing, reprography, magnetic recording and digital processing, and particularly its reproduction by recording on CDs and similar data carriers,
3. Use fragments of the piece of work for promotional purposes in publications, promotional materials, the Internet and Intranet type networks managed by the WSB Merito University in Wroclaw.
4. Store the piece of work into computer databases managed by the WSB Merito University in Wroclaw.
5. Copy and reproduce the piece of work using photo-mechanic technologies other than those commonly known at the time of the signature hereof (photocopies, Xerox copies etc.),
6. Process the piece of work, transferring it into an electronic form, and distribute it on the Internet without limitations.
