Simple plurality versus plurality runoff with privately informed voters
نویسنده
چکیده
This paper compares two voting methods commonly used in presidential elections: simple plurality voting and plurality runoff. In a situation in which a group of voters have common interests but do not agree on which candidate to support due to private information, information aggregation requires them to split their support between their favorite candidates. However, if a group of voters split their support between their favorite candidates, they increase the probability that the winner of the election is not one of them. In a model with three candidates, due to this tension between information aggregation and the need for coordination, plurality runoff leads to higher expected utility for the majority than simple plurality voting if the information held by voters about the candidates is not very accurate. ∗Departamento de Economı́a and Centro de Investigación Económica, Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México, México, D.F. 10700. E-mail: [email protected]. Phone: +52 56284197. Fax: +52 56284058. I thank José Luis Ferreira for useful conversations and audiences at Colegio de México, the LACEA Political Economy Group, and the 2000 Social Choice and Welfare Meetings (Alicante) for helpful observations.
منابع مشابه
Sincere Voting in Large Elections
We consider a large two-candidate election with privately informed voters who would all agree on a candidate if their information is aggregated. Due to the presence of uninformed voters who randomly split their votes between the two candidates, there is no equilibrium that is information-efficient under any plurality rule. We introduce an election rule that requires a super majority to elect an...
متن کاملRobust Political Equilibria under Plurality and Runoff Rule∗
A central problem for the game theoretic analysis of voting is that voting games have very many Nash equilibria. In this paper, we consider a new refinement concept for voting games that combines two ideas that appear reasonable for voting games: First, trembling hand perfection (voters sometimes make mistakes when casting their vote) and second, coordination of voters with similar interests. W...
متن کاملInformational requirements of social choice rules to avoid the Condorcet loser
I consider informational requirements of social choice rules satisfying anonymity, neutrality, monotonicity, and efficiency, and never choosing the Condorcet loser. Depending on the number of agents and the number of alternatives, either the plurality rule or a plurality with a runoff is characterized. In some cases, the plurality rule is the most selective rule among the rules operating on the...
متن کاملInformational requirements of social choice rules to avoid the Condorcet loser: A characterization of the plurality with a runoff
I consider informational requirements of social choice rules satisfying anonymity, neutrality, monotonicity, and efficiency, and never choosing the Condorcet loser. Depending on the number of agents and the number of alternatives, either the plurality rule or a plurality with a runoff is characterized. In some cases, the plurality rule is the most selective rule among the rules operating on the...
متن کاملOn a Three-Alternative Condorcet Jury Theorem
We investigate whether the simple plurality rule aggregates information efficiently in a large election with three alternatives. The environment is the same as in the Condorcet Jury Theorem (Condorcet (1785)). Voters have common preferences that depend on the unknown state of nature, and they receive imprecise private signals about the state of nature prior to voting. With two alternatives and ...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
- Social Choice and Welfare
دوره 19 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2002