Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Group Decision and Negotiation 1/2019

30-11-2018

Compromise Rules Revisited

Authors: Vincent Merlin, İpek Özkal Sanver, M. Remzi Sanver

Published in: Group Decision and Negotiation | Issue 1/2019

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Decision makers often face a dilemma when they have to arbitrate between the quantity of support for a decision (i.e., the number of people who back it) and the quality of support (i.e., at which level to go down in voters’ preferences to obtain sufficient level of support). The trade-off between the quality and quantity of support behind alternatives led to numerous suggestions in social choice theory: without being exhaustive we can mention Majoritarian Compromise, Fallback Bargaining, Set of Efficient Compromises, Condorcet Practical Method, Median Voting Rule, Majority Judgement. Our point is that all these concepts share a common feature which enables us to gather them in the same class, the class of compromise rules, which are all based upon elementary scoring rules described extensively by Saari. One can exploit his results to analyze the compromise rules with relative ease, which is a major point of our paper.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Footnotes
1
This method was implemented in December 2016 to select a candidate for the 2017 French presidential election. Via the website https://​laprimaire.​org/​, 50.64% of the 32,685 participants gave the grade “very good” to Charlotte Marchandise, who was selected. Eventually, she could not participate in the 2017 French presidential elections, as she did not get the support of 500 elected officials, a necessary condition to register as a candidate.
 
2
The term efficient compromise has also been used in the literature by Börgers and Postl (2009). When two persons with opposite preferences have to choose among three alternatives, it is the alternative that maximizes ex ante the weighted sum of von Neumann Morgenstern (vNM) utilities of the voters. Their primary objective is to understand whether this solution is implementable when the vNM utilities are privately observed. Our model is not as precise, as we ignore the utilities of the agents in this paper, and just focus on their ranking; hence, Börgers and Postl’s “utilitarian” efficient compromise is not defined in our context.
 
3
Also called the Veto Rule, or the Negative Plurality Rule in the literature.
 
4
For more on scoring rules using thresholds, see Saari (1994).
 
5
Recall that our refined q-partisan compromise is what Brams and Kilgour (2001) call q-approval compromise.
 
6
See Young (1974, 1975)
 
7
This is precisely described for the three candidate case in Saari (1999).
 
8
Alternative a is a weak Condorcet winner at profile p if \(N_{a,b}(p)\ge N_{b,a}(p)\) for all \(b\in A,b\not =a.\)
 
Literature
go back to reference Balinski M, Laraki R (2007) A theory of measuring, electing and ranking. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(21):8720–8725CrossRef Balinski M, Laraki R (2007) A theory of measuring, electing and ranking. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(21):8720–8725CrossRef
go back to reference Balinski M, Laraki R (2011) Majority judgment: measuring ranking and electing. MIT Press, CambridgeCrossRef Balinski M, Laraki R (2011) Majority judgment: measuring ranking and electing. MIT Press, CambridgeCrossRef
go back to reference Börgers T, Postl P (2009) Efficient compromising. J Econ Theory 144:2057–2076CrossRef Börgers T, Postl P (2009) Efficient compromising. J Econ Theory 144:2057–2076CrossRef
go back to reference Brams S, Kilgour DM (2001) Fallback bargaining. Group Decis Negot 10:287–316CrossRef Brams S, Kilgour DM (2001) Fallback bargaining. Group Decis Negot 10:287–316CrossRef
go back to reference Congar R, Merlin V (2012) A characterization of the maximin rule in the context of voting. Theory Decis 72–1:131–147CrossRef Congar R, Merlin V (2012) A characterization of the maximin rule in the context of voting. Theory Decis 72–1:131–147CrossRef
go back to reference de Borda J-C (1781) Mémoire sur les Élections au Scrutin. Histoire de l’Académie Royale des Sciences, Paris de Borda J-C (1781) Mémoire sur les Élections au Scrutin. Histoire de l’Académie Royale des Sciences, Paris
go back to reference de Caritat MJAN (1785) Marquis de Condorcet, Éssai sur l’Application de l’Analyse à la Probabilité des Décisions Rendues à la Pluralité des Voix, L’Imprimerie Royale, Paris de Caritat MJAN (1785) Marquis de Condorcet, Éssai sur l’Application de l’Analyse à la Probabilité des Décisions Rendues à la Pluralité des Voix, L’Imprimerie Royale, Paris
go back to reference Gehrlein WV, Lepelley D (2003) On some limitations of the median voting rule. Public Choice 117–2:177–190CrossRef Gehrlein WV, Lepelley D (2003) On some limitations of the median voting rule. Public Choice 117–2:177–190CrossRef
go back to reference Goldsmith J, Lang J, Mattei N, Perny P (2016) Voting with rank dependant scoring rules. AAAI, Menlo Park Goldsmith J, Lang J, Mattei N, Perny P (2016) Voting with rank dependant scoring rules. AAAI, Menlo Park
go back to reference Nurmi H (1999) Voting paradoxes and how to deal with them. Springer, BerlinCrossRef Nurmi H (1999) Voting paradoxes and how to deal with them. Springer, BerlinCrossRef
go back to reference Özkal-Sanver İ, Sanver MR (2004) Efficiency in the degree of compromise: a new axiom for social choice theory. Group Decis Negot 13:375–380CrossRef Özkal-Sanver İ, Sanver MR (2004) Efficiency in the degree of compromise: a new axiom for social choice theory. Group Decis Negot 13:375–380CrossRef
go back to reference Saari DG (1989) A dictionary for voting paradoxes. J Econ Theory 48:443–475CrossRef Saari DG (1989) A dictionary for voting paradoxes. J Econ Theory 48:443–475CrossRef
go back to reference Saari DG (1992) Millions of election outcomes from a single profile. Social Choice Welf 9:227–306 Saari DG (1992) Millions of election outcomes from a single profile. Social Choice Welf 9:227–306
go back to reference Saari DG (1999) Explaining all three-alternative voting outcomes. J Econ Theory 87:313–355CrossRef Saari DG (1999) Explaining all three-alternative voting outcomes. J Econ Theory 87:313–355CrossRef
go back to reference Sertel MR (1986) Lectures notes in microeconomics. Bogazici University, unpublished Sertel MR (1986) Lectures notes in microeconomics. Bogazici University, unpublished
go back to reference Sertel MR, Yilmaz B (1999) The majoritarian compromise is majoritarian optimal and subgame perfect implementable. Social Choice Welf 16:615–627CrossRef Sertel MR, Yilmaz B (1999) The majoritarian compromise is majoritarian optimal and subgame perfect implementable. Social Choice Welf 16:615–627CrossRef
go back to reference Smith JH (1973) Aggregation of preferences with variable electorate. Econometrica 41:1027–1041CrossRef Smith JH (1973) Aggregation of preferences with variable electorate. Econometrica 41:1027–1041CrossRef
go back to reference Young HP (1974) A note on preference aggregation. Econometrica 42:1129–1131CrossRef Young HP (1974) A note on preference aggregation. Econometrica 42:1129–1131CrossRef
go back to reference Young HP (1975) Social choice scoring functions. SIAM J Appl Math 28:824–838CrossRef Young HP (1975) Social choice scoring functions. SIAM J Appl Math 28:824–838CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Compromise Rules Revisited
Authors
Vincent Merlin
İpek Özkal Sanver
M. Remzi Sanver
Publication date
30-11-2018
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Group Decision and Negotiation / Issue 1/2019
Print ISSN: 0926-2644
Electronic ISSN: 1572-9907
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-018-9598-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Group Decision and Negotiation 1/2019 Go to the issue

EditorialNotes

Editorial