Dan S. Felsenthal Libros

This book deals with 18 voting procedures used or proposed for use in elections resulting in the choice of a single winner. These procedures are evaluated in terms of their ability to avoid paradoxical outcomes. Together with a companion volume by the same authors, Monotonicity Failures Afflicting Procedures for Electing a Single Candidate, published by Springer in 2017, this book aims at giving a comprehensive overview of the most important advantages and disadvantages of procedures thereby assisting decision makers in the choice of a voting procedure that would best suit their purposes.

Focusing on 20 voting procedures for electing a single winner, this book evaluates their effectiveness in avoiding five significant paradoxes, particularly when a Condorcet winner is present. It complements two earlier volumes by the same authors, providing a thorough analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of various voting methods. The insights aim to guide decision makers in selecting the most suitable voting procedure for their needs, ensuring informed choices in electoral processes.

The evaluation of 18 voting procedures focuses on key monotonicity-related criteria within fixed and variable electorates. It examines how these procedures handle voter preferences and includes discussions on monotonicity failures and the no-show paradoxes. The relationship between these paradoxes and the existence of a Condorcet winner is also explored. This book is aimed at scholars and students in social choice, providing detailed examples and explanations of the vulnerabilities in different voting systems.

Both theoretical and empirical aspects of single- and multi-winner voting procedures are presented in this collection of papers. Starting from a discussion of the underlying principles of democratic representation, the volume includes a description of a great variety of voting procedures. It lists and illustrates their susceptibility to the main voting paradoxes, assesses (under various models of voters' preferences) the probability of paradoxical outcomes, and discusses the relevance of the theoretical results to the choice of voting system.