首页> 外文期刊>Social Choice and Welfare >Does majoritarian approval matter in selecting a social choice rule? An exploratory panel study
【24h】

Does majoritarian approval matter in selecting a social choice rule? An exploratory panel study

机译:在选择社会选择规则时,多数派的批准是否重要?探索性小组研究

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

This study is an attempt to empirically detect the public opinion concerning majoritarian approval axiom. A social choice rule respects majoritarian approval iff it chooses only those alternatives which are regarded by a majority of “voters” to be among the “better half” of the candidates available. We focus on three social choice rules, the Majoritarian Compromise, Borda’s Rule and Condorcet’s Method, among which the Majoritarian Compromise is the only social choice rule always respecting majoritarian approval. We confronted each of our 288 subjects with four hypothetical preference profiles of a hypothetical electorate over some abstract set of four alternatives. At each hypothetical preference profile, two representing the preferences of five and two other of seven voters, the subject was asked to indicate, from an impartial viewpoint, which of the four alternatives should be chosen whose preference profile was presented, which if that is unavailable, then which if both of the above are unavailable, and finally which alternative should be avoided especially. In each of these profiles there is a Majoritarian Compromise-winner, a Borda-winner and a Condorcet-winner, and the Majoritarian Compromise-winner is always distinct from both the Borda-winner and the Condorcet-winner, while the Borda- and Condorcet-winners sometimes coincide. If the Borda- and Condorcet-winners coincide then there are two dummy candidates, otherwise only one, and dummies coincide with neither of the Majoritarian Compromise-, Borda- or Condorcet-winner. We presented our subjects with various types of hypothetical preference profiles, some where Borda respecting majoritarian approval, some where it failed to do so, then again for Condorcet, some profiles it respected majoritarian approval and some where it did not. The main thing we wanted to see was whether subjects’ support for Borda and Condorcet was higher when this social choice rule respected majoritarian approval than it did not. Our unambiguous overall empirical finding is that our subjects’ support for Borda and Condorcet was significantly stronger as they respect majoritarian approval. This is one of the last published works of Murat R. Sertel whom we lost on January 25, 2003. He was a genuine scholar and an excellent teacher.His brilliant approach toward unifying the diversified topics of economic theory has deeply influenced his colleagues and students.
机译:这项研究是试图从经验上发现有关多数派批准公理的民意。社会选择规则尊重多数派的同意,前提是它只选择那些大多数“选民”认为是可用候选人中“更好一半”的替代方案。我们关注三种社会选择规则,即多数人妥协,博尔达规则和孔多塞的方法,其中多数人妥协是唯一始终尊重多数派批准的社会选择规则。我们针对288名受试者中的每一个,在一个抽象的四个备选方案集上,对一个假设选民的四个假设偏好进行了分析。在每个假设的偏好配置文件中,两个代表五个投票者的偏好,另外七个代表七个选民的偏好,要求被访者从公正的角度指出应选择四个选项中的哪个选项,并提供其偏好配置文件;如果不存在,则选择哪个选项,那么如果以上两个都不可用,那么最后应该特别避免哪种选择。在每个配置文件中,都有一个多数派妥协优胜者,一个Borda优胜者和一个Condorcet优胜者,而多数妥协优胜者始终与Borda优胜者和Condorcet优胜者不同,而Borda和Condorcet -获奖者有时会碰巧。如果博达奖和孔多塞奖得主重合,则有两名假候选人,否则只有一名候选人,而假人与多数票妥协奖,博达奖或孔多塞奖都没有。我们为我们的受检者提供了各种类型的假设偏好资料,其中一些是博达(Borda)尊重多数派批准的,一些是它没有这样做的,然后是Condorcet,有些是它尊重多数派的批准的,有些则没有。我们主要想看到的是,当这种社会选择规则尊重多数派的批准时,受试者对Borda和Condorcet的支持是否更高。我们明确的整体经验发现是,受测者尊重多数派的认可,因此他们对Borda和Condorcet的支持明显增强。这是我们于2003年1月25日失去的Murat R. Sertel的最后发表的作品之一。他是一位真正的学者和一位出色的老师。他的统一经济学理论各方面的出色方法深深地影响了他的同事和学生。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号