Theory and Decision 84 (4):525-546 (2018)

Two-stage voting is prone to majority inversions, a situation in which the outcome of an election is not backed by a majority of popular votes. We study the probability of majority inversion in a model with two candidates, three states and uniformly distributed fractions of supporters for each candidate. The model encompasses equal or distinct population sizes, with equal, population-based or arbitrary voting weights in the second stage. We prove that, when no state can dictate the outcome of the election by commanding a voting weight in excess of one half, the probability of majority inversion increases with the size disparity among the states.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11238-018-9660-1
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 72,634
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Statistical Inference.G. Casella & R. L. Berger - 2002 - Thomson Learning.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Majority Voting on Orders.Gilbert Laffond - 2000 - Theory and Decision 49 (3):249-287.
Special Majorities Rationalized.Robert E. Goodin & Christian List - 2006 - British Journal of Political Science 36 (2):213-241.
The Budget-Voting Paradox.Gilbert Laffond & Jean Lainé - 2008 - Theory and Decision 64 (4):447-478.


Added to PP index

Total views
4 ( #1,286,651 of 2,533,753 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #260,225 of 2,533,753 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes