Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Social Choice and Welfare 3/2023

06.05.2023 | Original Paper

Social acceptability and the majoritarian compromise rule

verfasst von: Mostapha Diss, Clinton Gubong Gassi, Issofa Moyouwou

Erschienen in: Social Choice and Welfare | Ausgabe 3/2023

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

We study the relationships between two well-known social choice concepts, namely the principle of social acceptability introduced by Mahajne and Volij (Soc Choice Welf 51(2):223–233, 2018), and the majoritarian compromise rule introduced by Sertel (Lectures notes in microeconomics, Bogazici University, 1986) and studied in detail by Sertel and Yılmaz (Soc Choice Welf 16(4):615–627, 1999). The two concepts have been introduced separately in the literature in the spirit of selecting an alternative that satisfies most individuals in single-winner elections. Our results in this paper show that the two concepts are so closely related that the interaction between them cannot be ignored. We show that the majoritarian compromise rule always selects a socially acceptable alternative when the number of alternatives is even and we provide a necessary and sufficient condition so that the majoritarian compromise rule always selects a socially acceptable alternative when the number of alternatives is odd. Moreover, we show that when we restrict ourselves to the three well-studied classes of single-peaked, single-caved, and single-crossing preferences, the majoritarian compromise rule always picks a socially acceptable alternative whatever the number of alternatives and the number of voters.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

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!

Fußnoten
1
Note that the majoritarian compromise rule can be seen as a refinement of the median voting rule introduced by Bassett and Persky (1999). See also Gehrlein and Lepelley (2003).
 
2
This rule is called the HAHR (Half Accepted Half Rejected) rule. Its formal definition will be presented in the next section.
 
3
It is worth noting that Diss and Mahajne (2020) extended the concept of social acceptability to multi-winner elections and in that setup studied the social acceptability of any q-Condorcet committee (Gehrlein 1985), that is a subset of alternatives where every member of that subset is head-to-head preferred by at least a proportion \(q\in ]\frac{1}{2},1]\) of voters than any non-member alternative. See also Diss and Doghmi (2016), Gehrlein (1983) and Gehrlein and Lepelley (2011, 2017).
 
4
A preference relation will also be denoted by \(\succ \) if the specification of the voter i is unnecessary.
 
5
As noted before, Mahajne and Volij (2018) provided an axiomatic characterization of the only scoring SCR that always follows the social acceptability principle, namely the HAHR rule. Consequently, they show that SA(p) is non-empty for any profile p.
 
6
See footnote 5.
 
7
Note that if \(m=3\), any Condorcet winner is socially acceptable according to Mahajne and Volij (2019).
 
8
Sometimes single-caved preferences are also called single-dipped (e.g., Klaus et al. 1997).
 
Literatur
Zurück zum Zitat Awde A, Diss M, Kamwa E, Rolland JY, Tlidi A (2023) Social unacceptability for simple voting procedures. In: Kurz S, Maaser N, Mayer A (eds) Advances in collective decision making: interdisciplinary perspectives for the 21st century. Springer, Berlin Awde A, Diss M, Kamwa E, Rolland JY, Tlidi A (2023) Social unacceptability for simple voting procedures. In: Kurz S, Maaser N, Mayer A (eds) Advances in collective decision making: interdisciplinary perspectives for the 21st century. Springer, Berlin
Zurück zum Zitat Bassett GW, Persky J (1999) Robust voting. Public Choice 99(3):299–310CrossRef Bassett GW, Persky J (1999) Robust voting. Public Choice 99(3):299–310CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Black D (1948) On the rationale of group decision-making. J Polit Econ 56(1):23–34CrossRef Black D (1948) On the rationale of group decision-making. J Polit Econ 56(1):23–34CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Brams S, Kilgour DM (2001) Fallback bargaining. Group Decis Negot 10(4):287–316CrossRef Brams S, Kilgour DM (2001) Fallback bargaining. Group Decis Negot 10(4):287–316CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Bubboloni D, Diss M, Gori M (2020) Extensions of the Simpson voting rule to the committee selection setting. Public Choice 181(1):151–185CrossRef Bubboloni D, Diss M, Gori M (2020) Extensions of the Simpson voting rule to the committee selection setting. Public Choice 181(1):151–185CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Dindar H, Lainé J (2022) Compromise in combinatorial vote. Soc Choice Welf (forthcoming) Dindar H, Lainé J (2022) Compromise in combinatorial vote. Soc Choice Welf (forthcoming)
Zurück zum Zitat Diss M, Doghmi A (2016) Multi-winner scoring election methods: condorcet consistency and paradoxes. Public Choice 169(1–2):97–116CrossRef Diss M, Doghmi A (2016) Multi-winner scoring election methods: condorcet consistency and paradoxes. Public Choice 169(1–2):97–116CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Diss M, Mahajne M (2020) Social acceptability of condorcet committees. Math Soc Sci 105:14–27CrossRef Diss M, Mahajne M (2020) Social acceptability of condorcet committees. Math Soc Sci 105:14–27CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Elkind E, Faliszewski P, Skowron P, Slinko A (2017) Properties of multiwinner voting rules. Soc Choice Welf 48(3):599–632CrossRef Elkind E, Faliszewski P, Skowron P, Slinko A (2017) Properties of multiwinner voting rules. Soc Choice Welf 48(3):599–632CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Faliszewski P, Skowron P, Slinko A, Talmon N (2016) Committee scoring rules: axiomatic classification and hierarchy. In: Proceedings of the twenty-fifth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI-16) Faliszewski P, Skowron P, Slinko A, Talmon N (2016) Committee scoring rules: axiomatic classification and hierarchy. In: Proceedings of the twenty-fifth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI-16)
Zurück zum Zitat Gehrlein WV (1983) Condorcet’s paradox. Theor Decis 15(2):161–197CrossRef Gehrlein WV (1983) Condorcet’s paradox. Theor Decis 15(2):161–197CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Gehrlein WV (1985) The Condorcet criterion and committee selection. Math Soc Sci 10(3):199–209CrossRef Gehrlein WV (1985) The Condorcet criterion and committee selection. Math Soc Sci 10(3):199–209CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Gehrlein WV, Lepelley D (2011) Voting paradoxes and group coherence. In: Studies in choice and welfare. Springer, Berlin Gehrlein WV, Lepelley D (2011) Voting paradoxes and group coherence. In: Studies in choice and welfare. Springer, Berlin
Zurück zum Zitat Gehrlein WV, Lepelley D (2017) Elections, voting rules and paradoxical outcomes. In: Studies in choice and welfare. Springer, Berlin Gehrlein WV, Lepelley D (2017) Elections, voting rules and paradoxical outcomes. In: Studies in choice and welfare. Springer, Berlin
Zurück zum Zitat 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
Zurück zum Zitat Giritligil AE, Sertel M (2005) Does majoritarian approval matter in selecting a social choice rule? An exploratory panel study. Soc Choice Welf 25:43–73CrossRef Giritligil AE, Sertel M (2005) Does majoritarian approval matter in selecting a social choice rule? An exploratory panel study. Soc Choice Welf 25:43–73CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Inada K-I (1964) A note on the simple majority decision rule. Econometrica 32(4):525–531CrossRef Inada K-I (1964) A note on the simple majority decision rule. Econometrica 32(4):525–531CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Klaus B, Peters H, Storcken T (1997) Strategy-proof division of a private good when preferences are single-dipped. Econ Lett 55(3):339–346CrossRef Klaus B, Peters H, Storcken T (1997) Strategy-proof division of a private good when preferences are single-dipped. Econ Lett 55(3):339–346CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Kondratev AY, Nesterov A (2018) Measuring majority tyranny: axiomatic approach. In: Higher school of economics research paper no, WP BRP, p 194 Kondratev AY, Nesterov A (2018) Measuring majority tyranny: axiomatic approach. In: Higher school of economics research paper no, WP BRP, p 194
Zurück zum Zitat Laffond G, Lainé J (2012) Searching for a compromise in multiple referendum. Group Decis Negot 21:551–569CrossRef Laffond G, Lainé J (2012) Searching for a compromise in multiple referendum. Group Decis Negot 21:551–569CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Llamazares B, Peña T (2015) Positional voting systems generated by cumulative standings functions. Group Decis Negot 24(5):777–801CrossRef Llamazares B, Peña T (2015) Positional voting systems generated by cumulative standings functions. Group Decis Negot 24(5):777–801CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Mahajne M, Volij O (2018) The socially acceptable scoring rule. Soc Choice Welf 51(2):223–233CrossRef Mahajne M, Volij O (2018) The socially acceptable scoring rule. Soc Choice Welf 51(2):223–233CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Mahajne M, Volij O (2019) Condorcet winners and social acceptability. Soc Choice Welf 53(4):641–653CrossRef Mahajne M, Volij O (2019) Condorcet winners and social acceptability. Soc Choice Welf 53(4):641–653CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Merlin V, Özkal-Sanver I, Sanver MR (2019) Compromise rules revisited. Group Decis Negot 28(1):63–78CrossRef Merlin V, Özkal-Sanver I, Sanver MR (2019) Compromise rules revisited. Group Decis Negot 28(1):63–78CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Merlin V, Özkal-Sanver I, Sanver MR (2006) Properties of majoritarian compromise, efficient compromise, and related compromise rules. Bilgi University, Istanbul. (Unpublished manuscript) Merlin V, Özkal-Sanver I, Sanver MR (2006) Properties of majoritarian compromise, efficient compromise, and related compromise rules. Bilgi University, Istanbul. (Unpublished manuscript)
Zurück zum Zitat Mirrlees J (1971) An exploration in the theory of optimum income taxation. Rev Econ Stud 38(2):175–208CrossRef Mirrlees J (1971) An exploration in the theory of optimum income taxation. Rev Econ Stud 38(2):175–208CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat 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
Zurück zum Zitat Sen A (1969) Quasi-transitivity, rational choice and collective decisions. Rev Econ Stud 36(3):381–393CrossRef Sen A (1969) Quasi-transitivity, rational choice and collective decisions. Rev Econ Stud 36(3):381–393CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Sertel M (1986) Lectures notes in microeconomics. Bogazici University (Unpublished manuscript) Sertel M (1986) Lectures notes in microeconomics. Bogazici University (Unpublished manuscript)
Zurück zum Zitat Sertel M, Yılmaz B (1999) The majoritarian compromise is majoritarian-optimal and subgame-perfect implementable. Soc Choice Welf 16(4):615–627CrossRef Sertel M, Yılmaz B (1999) The majoritarian compromise is majoritarian-optimal and subgame-perfect implementable. Soc Choice Welf 16(4):615–627CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Social acceptability and the majoritarian compromise rule
verfasst von
Mostapha Diss
Clinton Gubong Gassi
Issofa Moyouwou
Publikationsdatum
06.05.2023
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
Social Choice and Welfare / Ausgabe 3/2023
Print ISSN: 0176-1714
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-217X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-023-01464-4

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2023

Social Choice and Welfare 3/2023 Zur Ausgabe

Premium Partner