Circle pictograms for vote vectors

SIAM Review

Volumn 38, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 96-119

  Stensholt, Eivind ^a  

^a NORWEGIAN SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (Norway)

Author keywords

Condorcet's paradox; Opinion polls; Pictograms; Preference elections; Spatial modelling

Indexed keywords

MATHEMATICAL MODELS; THEOREM PROVING;

CONDORCET'S PARADOX; OPINION POLLS; PICTOGRAMS; PREFERENCE ELECTIONS; SPATIAL MODELLING; VOTE VECTORS;

VECTORS;

EID: 0030104393     PISSN: 00361445     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1137/1038004     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. K. J. ARROW AND H. RAYNAUD, Social Choice and Multicriterion Decision-Making, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986.
2. W. GEHRLEIN, The expected probability of Condorcet's paradox, Econom. Lett., 7, (1981), pp. 33-47.
3. _, Condorcet's paradox, Theory and Decision, 15 (1983), pp. 161-197.
4. W. GEHRLEIN AND P. C. FISHBURN, Probabilities of election outcomes for large electorates, J. Econom. Theory, 19, (1978) pp. 38-49.
5. G. TH. GUILBAUD, Elements de la Theorie Mathematique des Jeux, Dunod Monographies de Recherhe Operationelle, Paris, 1968.
6. J. S. KELLY, Social Choice Theory, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1988.
7. H. R. PENNIMAN, ED., The Australian National Elections of 1977, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington D.C., 1979.
8. H. NURMI, An assessment of voting system simulations, Public Choice 73, 4 (1992) pp. 459-488.
9. T. SCHWARTZ, The Logic of Collective Choice, Columbia University Press, New York, 1986.
10. J. VAN NEWENHIZEN, The Borda method is most likely to respect the Condorcet principle, Economic Theory, 2 (1992), pp. 69-83.