Approval as an Intrinsic Part of Preference

The collective decision making problem can be conceived as the aggregation of a vector of utility functions whose informational content depends on the assumptions made about the cardinality and interpersonal comparability of individual preferences. To be more explicit, we consider a non-empty set N of individuals and a non-empty set A of alternatives. Letting U(A) be the set of real-valued “utility functions” defined over A, we model the problem through an aggregation function f : U(A) N → 2 A \{O} The assumptions about the cardinality and interpersonal comparability of individual preferences are formalized by partitioning U(A) into information sets, while requiring f to be invariant at any two vector of utility functions which belong to the same information set. At one extreme, one can assume the existence of an absolute scale over which the utilities of individuals are measured and compared. This assumption partitions U(A) into singleton information sets, hence imposing no invariance over f. At the other extreme, one can rule out any kind of cardinal information and interpersonal comparability, in which case an information set consists of the elements of U(A) which are ordinally equivalent, i.e., induce the same ordering of alternatives for every individual.1 When cardinality and interpersonal comparability are ruled out, the problem can be modeled through an aggregation function f : W(A) N → 2 A \{O} where W(A) is the set of weak orders (i.e., complete and transitive binary relations) over A. We refer to this as the Arrovian model (Arrow 1950, 1951).

[1]  A. Sen,et al.  Social Choice Theory , 1980 .

[2]  Donald G. Saari,et al.  Chaotic Elections! - A Mathematician Looks at Voting , 2001 .

[3]  Intransigence in Negotiations , 1993 .

[4]  Fuad Aleskerov,et al.  A 'threshold aggregation' of three-graded rankings , 2007, Math. Soc. Sci..

[5]  Agnieszka Wiszniewska-Matyszkiel,et al.  Game theory and mathematical economics , 2006 .

[6]  M. Balinski,et al.  Majority Judgment: Measuring, Ranking, and Electing , 2011 .

[7]  Jörg Rothe,et al.  Sincere-Strategy Preference-Based Approval Voting Broadly Resists Control , 2008, MFCS.

[8]  Georges Bordes,et al.  Consistency, Rationality and Collective Choice , 1976 .

[9]  W. Bossert,et al.  Utility in Social Choice , 2004 .

[10]  Rida Laraki,et al.  A theory of measuring, electing, and ranking , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[11]  C. Hillinger,et al.  The Case for Utilitarian Voting , 2005 .

[12]  Peter C. Fishburn,et al.  The responsiveness of approval voting: Comments on Saari and Van Newenhizen , 1988 .

[13]  K. Arrow,et al.  Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare , 2011 .

[14]  William S. Zwicker,et al.  Monotonicity properties and their adaptation to irresolute social choice rules , 2012, Soc. Choice Welf..

[15]  P. Hammond,et al.  Handbook of Utility Theory , 2004 .

[16]  Y. Ng Utilitarianism and interpersonal comparison , 1992 .

[17]  Jean-François Laslier,et al.  Handbook on approval voting , 2010 .

[18]  Francesca Rossi,et al.  Preference Aggregation over Restricted Ballot Languages: Sincerity and Strategy-Proofness , 2009, IJCAI.

[19]  Douglas Muzzio,et al.  APPROVAL VOTING , 1983 .

[20]  François Maniquet,et al.  Classical electoral competition under approval voting , 2010 .

[21]  J. Laffont Aggregation and revelation of preferences , 1979 .

[22]  Donald G. Saari,et al.  Is approval voting an ‘unmitigated evil’?: A response to Brams, Fishburn, and Merrill , 1987 .

[23]  Fred S. Roberts,et al.  The Mathematics of Preference, Choice and Order , 2009, Studies in Choice and Welfare.

[24]  K. Arrow A Difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare , 1950, Journal of Political Economy.

[25]  Steven J. Brams,et al.  Critical Strategies Under Approval Voting: Who Gets Ruled In And Ruled Out , 2006 .

[26]  J. Nash THE BARGAINING PROBLEM , 1950, Classics in Game Theory.

[27]  Donald G. Saari,et al.  A dictionary for voting paradoxes , 1989 .

[28]  A. Roth,et al.  Two-sided matching , 1990 .

[29]  M. Remzi Sanver,et al.  The Basic Approval Voting Game , 2010 .

[30]  H. Moulin Axioms of Cooperative Decision Making , 1988 .

[31]  Peter C. Fishburn,et al.  Rejoinder to Saari and Van Newenhizen , 1988 .

[32]  K. Arrow Social Choice and Individual Values , 1951 .

[33]  Murat R. Sertel,et al.  The majoritarian compromise is majoritarian-optimal and subgame-perfect implementable , 1999 .

[34]  Policy Moderation and Endogenous Candidacy in Approval Voting Elections , 2009 .

[35]  Salvador Barberà,et al.  THE MANIPULATION OF SOCIAL CHOICE MECHANISMS THAT DO NOT LEAVE "TOO MUCH" TO CHANCE' , 1977 .

[36]  Jerzy Tyszkiewicz,et al.  Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science 2008, 33rd International Symposium, MFCS 2008, Torun, Poland, August 25-29, 2008, Proceedings , 2008, MFCS.

[37]  Ayzerman,et al.  Theory of choice , 1995 .

[38]  Peter C. Fishburn,et al.  Monotonicity paradoxes in the theory of elections , 1982, Discret. Appl. Math..

[39]  D. Pallaschke,et al.  Game Theory and Related Topics , 1980 .

[40]  D. Saari,et al.  The problem of indeterminacy in approval, multiple, and truncated voting systems , 1988 .

[41]  B. Peleg Game Theoretic Analysis of Voting in Committees , 1984 .

[42]  K. Arrow,et al.  Social Choice and Individual Values , 1951 .

[43]  H. Chernoff Rational Selection of Decision Functions , 1954 .

[44]  R. Niemi The Problem of Strategic Behavior under Approval Voting , 1984, American Political Science Review.

[45]  Mark Beech,et al.  Proportional Representation , 1938 .

[46]  S. Brams,et al.  Fallback Bargaining , 2001 .

[47]  Steven J. Brams,et al.  Voting Systems that Combine Approval and Preference , 2009, The Mathematics of Preference, Choice and Order.

[48]  Hans Peters,et al.  On the manipulability of approval voting and related scoring rules , 2012, Soc. Choice Welf..

[49]  Matías Núñez Approval Voting in Large Electorates , 2010 .