A conditional defense of plurality rule: generalizing May's theorem in a restricted informational environment

May's theorem famously shows that, in social decisions between two options, simple majority rule uniquely satisfies four appealing conditions. Although this result is often cited in support of majority rule, it has never been extended beyond decisions based on pairwise comparisons of options. We generalize May's theorem to many-option decisions where voters each cast one vote. Surprisingly, plurality rule uniquely satisfies May's conditions. This suggests a conditional defense of plurality rule: If a society's balloting procedure collects only a single vote from each voter, then plurality rule is the uniquely compelling electoral procedure. To illustrate the conditional nature of this claim, we also identify a richer informational environment in which approval voting, not plurality rule, is supported by a May-style argument.

[1]  A. Sen,et al.  Social Choice Theory: A Re-Examination , 1977 .

[2]  Mathias Risse Arguing for Majority Rule , 2004 .

[3]  Antonio Rangel,et al.  A graphical analysis of some basic results in social choice , 2002, Soc. Choice Welf..

[4]  D. J Hartfiel,et al.  A characterization result for the plurality rule , 1978 .

[5]  村上 泰亮,et al.  Logic and social Choice , 1968 .

[6]  Norman Schofield,et al.  Social choice and democracy , 1985 .

[7]  Michael Saward,et al.  The Terms of Democracy , 1991 .

[8]  F. Roberts Characterizations of the plurality function , 1991 .

[9]  Michael Dummett,et al.  Principles Of Electoral Reform , 1997 .

[10]  P. Pattanaik,et al.  Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Rational Choice under Majority Decision , 1969 .

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

[12]  David Austen-Smith and Jeffrey S. Banks,et al.  Positive Political Theory II , 2005 .

[13]  P. Fishburn The Theory Of Social Choice , 1973 .

[14]  C. Coglianese Democracy and Its Critics , 1990 .

[15]  Kenneth A. Shepsle,et al.  Structure-induced equilibrium and legislative choice , 1981 .

[16]  L. A. Goodman,et al.  Social Choice and Individual Values , 1951 .

[17]  R. McKelvey General Conditions for Global Intransitivities in Formal Voting Models , 1979 .

[18]  W. Riker,et al.  Liberalism Against Populism: A Confrontation Between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice , 1982 .

[19]  Peter C. Fishburn,et al.  Axioms for approval voting: Direct proof , 1978 .

[20]  N. Schofield,et al.  Instability of Simple Dynamic Games , 1978 .

[21]  Murat R. Sertel,et al.  Characterizing approval voting , 1988 .

[22]  D. Mueller Public Choice III: What have we learned? , 1979 .

[23]  Robert A. Dahl,et al.  On Political Equality , 2006 .

[24]  Yasusuke Murakami Formal Structure of Majority Decision , 1966 .

[25]  A. Sen,et al.  Choice, Welfare and Measurement , 1982 .

[26]  M. Satterthwaite Strategy-proofness and Arrow's conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions , 1975 .

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

[28]  E. Maskin,et al.  On the Robustness of Majority Rule , 2008 .

[29]  J. Waldron,et al.  The dignity of legislation , 1999 .

[30]  Kenneth O. May,et al.  A Set of Independent Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Simple Majority Decision , 1952 .

[31]  R. Pieters,et al.  Working Paper , 1994 .

[32]  S. Ching A Simple Characterization of Plurality Rule , 1996 .

[33]  A. Gibbard Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result , 1973 .

[34]  Mark S. Bonchek,et al.  Analyzing politics : rationality, behavior, and institutions , 1996 .

[35]  A. Sen,et al.  Collective Choice and Social Welfare , 2017 .

[36]  Jules L. Coleman,et al.  Democracy and Social Choice , 1986, Ethics.

[37]  Democracy Defended , 2005, Canadian Journal of Political Science.

[38]  P. Fishburn,et al.  Voting Procedures , 2022 .

[39]  Peter C. Fishburn,et al.  Representations of binary decision rules by generalized decisiveness structures , 1979 .

[40]  J. Morrow The Rule of the Many , 1998 .