Buscar en
Cuadernos de Economía
Toda la web
Inicio Cuadernos de Economía Qualitative Voting
Información de la revista
Vol. 33. Núm. 92.
Páginas 5-43 (Mayo - Septiembre 2010)
Compartir
Compartir
Descargar PDF
Más opciones de artículo
Vol. 33. Núm. 92.
Páginas 5-43 (Mayo - Septiembre 2010)
Acceso a texto completo
Qualitative Voting
Visitas
1812
Rafael Hortalà-Vallvéa
London School of Economics
Este artículo ha recibido
Información del artículo
Abstract

Can we devise mechanisms that allow voters to express the intensity of their preferences when monetary transfers are forbidden? Can minorities be decisive over those issues they feel very strongly about? As opposed to the usual voting system (one person-one decision-one vote), we propose a voting system where each agent is endowed with a fixed number of votes that can be distributed freely among a set of issues that need to be approved or dismissed. Its novelty relies on allowing voters to express the intensity of their preferences in a simple manner. This voting system is optimal in a well-defined sense: in a strategic setting with two voters, two issues and preference intensities uniformly and independently distributed across possible values, Qualitative Voting Pareto dominates Majority Rule and, moreover, achieves the only ex-ante optimal (incentive compatible) allocation. The result also holds true with three voters as long as the voters preferences towards the issues differ sufficiently.

Keywords:
Voting
Intensity Problem
Alternatives to Majority Rule
Conflict Resolution
Resumen

¿Podemos encontrar un mecanismo sin transferencias monetarias que permita a los votantes expresar la intensidad de sus preferencias? ¿Puede la opinión de una minoría ser respetada cuando la intensidad de sus preferencias es muy superior a la intensidad de las preferencias de la mayoría? En este artículo proponemos una alternativa al sistema común de votación (una persona - una decisión - un voto) en la que cada agente dispone de un cierto número de votos que pueden ser libremente distribuidos entre una número predeterminado de decisiones. Lo novedoso de este sistema de votación es que permite a los votantes expresar cuánto les importa cada decisión. Caracterizamos condiciones suficientes en las que este sistema de votación es óptimo y superior a la regla de la mayoría.

Palabras clave:
Votar
problema de intensidad
alternativas a la regla de la mayoría
resolución de conflictos
El Texto completo está disponible en PDF
References
[Bowen and H, 1943]
H. Bowen.
The Interpretation of Voting in the Allocation of Economic Resources.
The Quarterly Journal of Economics, (1943), pp. 58
[Brams and Taylor, 1996]
S. Brams, A. Taylor.
Fair Division: From Cake-Cutting to Dispute Resolution.
University Press, (1996),
[Casella, 2005]
A. Casella.
Storable Votes.
Games and Economic Behaviour, (2005), pp. 51
[Coleman, 1970]
J. Coleman.
Political Money.
The American Political Science Review, (1970), pp. 64
[Cremer, 1988]
J. Cremer, McLean.
Full Extraction of the Surplus in Bayesian and Dominant Strategy Auctions.
Econometrica, (1988), pp. 56
[Dahl, 1956]
R. Dahl.
A Preface to Democratic Theory.
XII Walgreen Foundation Lectures, (1956),
[Dutta et al., 2004]
B. Dutta, M.O. Jackson, M. Le Breton.
Equilibrium Agenda Formation.
Social Choice and Welfare, (2004), pp. 23
[Gibbard, 1973]
A. Gibbard.
Manipulation of Voting Schemes.
Econometrica, (1973), pp. 41
[Holmstrom and Myerson, 1983]
B. Holmstrom, R. Myerson.
Efficient and Durable Decision Rules with Incomplete Information.
Econometrica, (1983), pp. 51
[Hortala-Vallve, 2009]
R. Hortala-Vallve.
Inefficiencies on Linking Decisions.
Social Choice and Welfare, forthcoming, (2009),
[Hortala-Vallve, 2009]
R. Hortala-Vallve.
Generous Legislators? A description of vote trading agreements (theory and experiments).
mimeo, (2009),
[Hylland and Zeckhauser, 1979]
A. Hylland, R. Zeckhauser.
A Mechanism for Selecting Public Goods When Preferences Must Be Elicited.
KSG Discussion Paper, (1979),
[Jackson and Sonnenschein, 2007]
M.O. Jackson, H.F. Sonnenschein.
Overcoming Incentive Constraints by Linking Decisions.
Econometrica, (2007), pp. 75
[Keeney and Raiffa, 1991]
R. Keeney, H. Raiffa.
Negotiation Analysis.
University of Michigan Press, (1991),
[Levy, 2004]
G. Levy.
A Model of Political Parties.
Journal of Economic Theory, (2004), pp. 115
[Locke, 1690]
J. Locke.
Two Treatises of Government and a Letter Concerning Toleration.
Yale University Press., (1690),
[Metcalfe, 2000]
D. Metcalfe.
The OECD Agreement to Criminalize Bribery.
International Negotiation: A journal of Theory and Practice, (2000), pp. 5
[Money and Tsebelis, 1997]
J. Money, M. Tsebelis.
Bicameralism.
Cambridge University Press, (1997),
[Mueller, 2003]
D. Mueller.
Public Choice III.
Cambridge University Press, (2003),
[Myerson, 1993]
R. Myerson.
Incentives to Cultivate Favored Minorities Under Alternative Electoral Systems.
The American Political Science Review, (1993), pp. 87
[Myerson, 1999]
R. Myerson.
Theoretical Comparisons of Electoral Systems.
European Economic Review, (1999), pp. 43
[Myerson and Satterthwaite, 1983]
R. Myerson, M. Satterthwaite.
Efficient Mechanisms for Bilateral Trading.
Journal of Economic Theory, (1983), pp. 29
[Rubin et al., 1986]
J. Rubin, D. Pruitt, S.H. Kim.
Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate and Settlement.
Random House, (1986),
[Satterthwhaite, 1975]
M.A. Satterthwhaite.
Strategy-proofness and Arrow's conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions.
Journal of Economic Theory, (1975), pp. 10
[Shepsle and Weingast, 1994]
K. Shepsle, B. Weingast.
Positive Theories of Congressional Institutions.
Legislative Studies Quarterly, (1994), pp. 19
[Spitz, 1984]
E. Spitz.
Majority Rule.
Chatham N. J, (1984),
[Tideman and Tullock, 1976]
T. Tideman, G. Tullock.
A New and Superior Process for Making Social Choices.
The Journal of Political Economy, (1976), pp. 84
[Wilson, 1969]
R. Wilson.
An Axiomatic Model of Logrolling.
The American Economic Review, (1969), pp. 59

Rafael Hortalá-Vallvé. Government Department. Houghton Street. London - WC2A 2AE. United Kingdom

I am particularly indebted to Leonardo Felli and Andrea Prat. I thank Tilman Borgers, Berta Esteve-Volart, Matthew Jackson, Gilat Levy, Aniol Llorente-Saguer, Rocco Macchiavello, Ronny Razin, Juan Pablo Rud, Barbara Veronese and seminar participants at a number of conferences for helpful comments and discussions. I would also like to thank the Stern School of Business at NYU and the Center for Government, Business and Society at Kellogg for their generous hospitality. Finally, I should express my gratitude to François Ortalo-Magné for encouraging me in the first steps of this research. Financial support from Fundación Ramón Areces and Fundación Rafael del Pino is gratefully acknowledged.

Copyright © 2010. Asociación Cuadernos de Economía
Opciones de artículo
Herramientas