Majority voting leads to unanimity
نویسندگان
چکیده
We consider a situation where society decides, through majority voting in a secret ballot, between the alternatives of ‘reform’ and ‘status quo’. Reform is assumed to create a minority of winners, while being efficient in the Kaldor–Hicks sense.We explore the consequences of allowing binding transfers between voters conditional on the chosen alternative. In particular, we establish conditions under which the winners wish to compensate all losers, thus leading to unanimity for reform, rather than compensating some losers to form a non-maximal majority. The analysis employs concepts from cooperative game theory.
منابع مشابه
Competition among Clubs: Do the Best Join the Best?
This paper analyzes the competition among clubs in which the status of club members is the crucial added value accruing to fellow club members through social interaction within the club (e.g. in professional sports clubs, academic faculties, country clubs, or internet communities). In the course of competition for new members, clubs trade off the effect of entry on average status of the club an...
متن کاملUnanimity Overruled: Majority Voting and the Burden of History
Sequential majority voting over interconnected binary propositions can lead to the overruling of unanimous consensus. We characterize, within the general framework of judgement aggregation, under what circumstances this happens for some sequence of the voting process. It turns out that the class of aggregation spaces for which this difficulty arises is very large, including the aggregation of p...
متن کاملMinority Voting and Public Project Provision
We propose a two-stage process called minority voting to allocate public projects in a polity. In the first period, a society decides by a simple majority decision whether to provide the public project. If the proposal in the first period is rejected, the process ends. Otherwise the process continues, but only the members of the minority keep agenda and voting rights for the second stage, in wh...
متن کاملDeliberation, Preference Uncertainty and Voting Rules
A deliberative committee is a group of at least two individuals who rst debate about what alternative to choose prior to these same individuals voting to determine the choice. We argue, rst, that uncertainty about individuals private preferences is necessary for full information sharing and, second, demonstrate in a very general setting that the condition under which unanimity can support fu...
متن کاملStrategic Voting over Strategic Proposals
Prior research on “strategic voting” has reached the conclusion that unanimity rule is uniquely bad: it results in destruction of information, and hence makes voters worse off. We show that this conclusion depends critically on the assumption that the issue being voted on is exogenous, i.e., independent of the voting rule used. We depart from the existing literature by endogenizing the proposal...
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:
- Int. J. Game Theory
دوره 35 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2006