Weak Condorcet winner(s) revisited |
| |
Authors: | Dan S. Felsenthal Nicolaus Tideman |
| |
Affiliation: | 1. School of Political Sciences, University of Haifa, 31905, Haifa, Israel 2. Department of Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Blacksburg, VA, 24061, USA
|
| |
Abstract: | A strong Condorcet winner (SCW) is an alternative, x, that a majority of voters rank higher than z, for every other alternative, z. A weak Condorcet winner (WCW) is an alternative, y, that no majority of voters rank below any other alternative, z, but is not a SCW. There has been some confusion in the voting/social choice literature as to whether particular voting rules that are SCW-consistent are also WCW-consistent. The purpose of this paper is to revisit this issue, clear up the confusion that has developed, and determine whether three additional SCW-consistent voting rules—that as far as we know have not been investigated to date regarding their possible WCW consistency—are indeed WCW-consistent. |
| |
Keywords: | |
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|