Knowledge (XXG)

Impartial culture

Source đź“ť

668: 165:
This reduces the set of possible elections by eliminating those that are equivalent if the voter identities are unknown. For example, the two-candidate, three-voter election {A>B, A>B, B>A} is equivalent to the election where the second and third voters swap votes: {A>B, B>A, A>B},
260:
This reduces the set of possible elections further, by eliminating those that are equivalent if the candidate identities are unknown. For example, the two-candidate, three-voter election {A>B, A>B, B>A} is equivalent to the election where the two candidates are swapped: {B>A, B>A,
650:
It can be shown that IAC is equivalent to the assumption that the preferences of the voters are independent and identically distributed according to a multinomial distribution conditional on a prior uniform draw … This prior is a special case of a Dirichlet
45:
The model is understood to be unrealistic, and not a good representation of real-world voting behavior, however, it is useful for mathematical comparisons of voting methods under reproducible, worst-case scenarios.
521:
if we use conditions that tend to exaggerate the likelihood of observing paradoxes and find that the probability is small with such calculations, the paradox is assuredly very unlikely to be observed in
247: 166:
and so all variations on this set of votes are only included once. The set of all such elections is called the anonymous equivalence class (AEC), and if the strict rankings are being chosen by
99:
There are three variations of the model that use different subsets of the full set of possible rankings, so that different election permutations are drawn with different probabilities:
49:
The model assumes that each voter provides a complete strict ranking of all the candidates (with no equal rankings or blanks), which is drawn from a set of all possible rankings. For
329:
Eğecioğlu, Ömer; Giritligil, Ayça E. (October 2013). "The Impartial, Anonymous, and Neutral Culture Model: A Probability Model for Sampling Public Preference Structures".
155: 90: 184: 125: 67: 709: 596: 473:
Tideman, T. Nicolaus; Plassmann, Florenz (2008). "The Source of Election Results: An Empirical Analysis of Statistical Models of Voter Behavior".
423:…Using unrealistic assumptions may thus have a reasonable methodological function even if we know how to describe reality in a more realistic way… 435:
Tsetlin, Ilia; Regenwetter, Michel; Grofman, Bernard (1 December 2003). "The impartial culture maximizes the probability of majority cycles".
514: 619:"The theoretical Shapley–Shubik probability of an election inversion in a toy symmetric version of the US presidential electoral system" 535: 702: 189: 107:
This model assumes that each voter's ranking is randomly selected from a uniform distribution. If these are chosen by
733: 461:
it is widely acknowledged that the impartial culture is unrealistic … the impartial culture is the worst case scenario
738: 306:
The impartial culture assumption has been criticized extensively as being implausible and empirically irrelevant
695: 728: 474: 667: 32: 479: 397:
Lehtinen, Aki; Kuorikoski, Jaakko (June 2007). "Unrealistic Assumptions in Rational Choice Theory".
28: 641: 543: 452: 414: 346: 297: 510: 497:
Gehrlein, William V.; Lepelley, Dominique (2011). "Voting Paradoxes and Their Probabilities".
679: 633: 618: 617:
de Mouzon, Olivier; Laurent, Thibault; Le Breton, Michel; Lepelley, Dominique (March 2020).
570: 502: 444: 406: 377: 338: 289: 130: 39: 72: 583:, an assumption is made that vote allocations are uniformly distributed on the simplex. 169: 110: 52: 485:
Voting theorists generally acknowledge that they consider this model to be unrealistic
280:
Van Deemen, Adrian (March 2014). "On the empirical relevance of Condorcet's paradox".
722: 645: 418: 301: 36: 547: 456: 350: 342: 506: 93: 368:[Theories of general interest and the logical problem of aggregation]. 675: 637: 574: 448: 293: 410: 382: 366:"Les théories de l'intérêt général et le problème logique de l'agrégation" 365: 561:
Quas, Anthony (March 2004). "Anomalous outcomes in preferential voting".
252:
This is also referred to as the "Dirichlet" or "simplex" model.
683: 192: 172: 133: 113: 75: 55: 597:"The Structure of the Election-Generating Universe" 242:{\displaystyle \left({\frac {n+m!-1}{m!-1}}\right)} 241: 178: 149: 119: 84: 61: 595:Tideman, T. Nicolaus; Plassmann, Florenz (2010). 604:London School of Economics and Political Science 501:. Studies in Choice and Welfare. pp. 1–47. 256:Impartial, Anonymous, and Neutral Culture (IANC) 536:"Comparing Probabilistic Models: IC, IAC, IANC" 703: 8: 157:possible elections ("preference profiles".) 710: 696: 478: 381: 197: 191: 171: 141: 132: 112: 74: 54: 269: 331:The Journal of Mathematical Sociology 7: 664: 662: 499:Voting Paradoxes and Group Coherence 324: 322: 320: 318: 316: 314: 275: 273: 364:Guilbaud, Georges-ThĂ©odule (2012). 682:. You can help Knowledge (XXG) by 14: 399:Philosophy of the Social Sciences 161:Impartial Anonymous Culture (IAC) 666: 1: 534:Veselova, Yuliya A. (2014). 343:10.1080/0022250X.2011.597012 507:10.1007/978-3-642-03107-6_1 25:the culture of indifference 755: 661: 92:possible strict rankings ( 638:10.1007/s00355-018-1162-0 626:Social Choice and Welfare 575:10.1142/S0219493704000912 449:10.1007/s00355-003-0269-z 437:Social Choice and Welfare 294:10.1007/s11127-013-0133-3 563:Stochastics and Dynamics 411:10.1177/0048393107299684 127:voters, there are thus 678:-related article is a 243: 180: 151: 150:{\displaystyle m!^{n}} 121: 103:Impartial Culture (IC) 86: 69:candidates, there are 63: 383:10.3917/reco.634.0659 244: 181: 152: 122: 87: 64: 249:possible elections. 190: 170: 131: 111: 73: 53: 33:social choice theory 186:voters, there are 29:probabilistic model 734:Statistical models 239: 176: 147: 117: 85:{\displaystyle m!} 82: 59: 691: 690: 540:Editorial Express 516:978-3-642-03106-9 233: 179:{\displaystyle n} 120:{\displaystyle n} 62:{\displaystyle m} 17:Impartial culture 746: 739:Statistics stubs 712: 705: 698: 670: 663: 654: 653: 632:(2–3): 363–395. 623: 614: 608: 607: 601: 592: 586: 585: 558: 552: 551: 531: 525: 524: 494: 488: 487: 482: 470: 464: 463: 432: 426: 425: 394: 388: 387: 385: 370:Revue Ă©conomique 361: 355: 354: 326: 309: 308: 288:(3–4): 311–330. 277: 248: 246: 245: 240: 238: 234: 232: 218: 198: 185: 183: 182: 177: 156: 154: 153: 148: 146: 145: 126: 124: 123: 118: 91: 89: 88: 83: 68: 66: 65: 60: 754: 753: 749: 748: 747: 745: 744: 743: 719: 718: 717: 716: 659: 657: 621: 616: 615: 611: 599: 594: 593: 589: 560: 559: 555: 533: 532: 528: 517: 496: 495: 491: 480:10.1.1.504.3181 472: 471: 467: 434: 433: 429: 396: 395: 391: 363: 362: 358: 328: 327: 312: 279: 278: 271: 267: 258: 219: 199: 193: 188: 187: 168: 167: 163: 137: 129: 128: 109: 108: 105: 71: 70: 51: 50: 12: 11: 5: 752: 750: 742: 741: 736: 731: 721: 720: 715: 714: 707: 700: 692: 689: 688: 671: 656: 655: 609: 587: 553: 526: 515: 489: 465: 443:(3): 387–398. 427: 405:(2): 115–138. 389: 356: 337:(4): 203–222. 310: 268: 266: 263: 257: 254: 237: 231: 228: 225: 222: 217: 214: 211: 208: 205: 202: 196: 175: 162: 159: 144: 140: 136: 116: 104: 101: 81: 78: 58: 35:for analyzing 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 751: 740: 737: 735: 732: 730: 729:Voting theory 727: 726: 724: 713: 708: 706: 701: 699: 694: 693: 687: 685: 681: 677: 672: 669: 665: 660: 652: 651:distribution. 647: 643: 639: 635: 631: 627: 620: 613: 610: 605: 598: 591: 588: 584: 582: 581:simplex model 576: 572: 569:(1): 95–105. 568: 564: 557: 554: 549: 545: 541: 537: 530: 527: 523: 518: 512: 508: 504: 500: 493: 490: 486: 481: 476: 469: 466: 462: 458: 454: 450: 446: 442: 438: 431: 428: 424: 420: 416: 412: 408: 404: 400: 393: 390: 384: 379: 375: 372:(in French). 371: 367: 360: 357: 352: 348: 344: 340: 336: 332: 325: 323: 321: 319: 317: 315: 311: 307: 303: 299: 295: 291: 287: 283: 282:Public Choice 276: 274: 270: 264: 262: 255: 253: 250: 235: 229: 226: 223: 220: 215: 212: 209: 206: 203: 200: 194: 173: 160: 158: 142: 138: 134: 114: 102: 100: 97: 95: 79: 76: 56: 47: 43: 41: 40:voting method 38: 34: 30: 26: 22: 18: 684:expanding it 673: 658: 649: 629: 625: 612: 606:. p. 5. 603: 590: 580: 578: 566: 562: 556: 539: 529: 520: 498: 492: 484: 468: 460: 440: 436: 430: 422: 402: 398: 392: 373: 369: 359: 334: 330: 305: 285: 281: 259: 251: 164: 106: 98: 94:permutations 48: 44: 24: 20: 16: 15: 723:Categories 676:statistics 376:(4): 659. 265:References 646:148626981 475:CiteSeerX 419:145169622 302:154862595 261:A>B}. 227:− 213:− 548:33200881 522:reality. 457:15488300 351:17266150 31:used in 579:In the 42:rules. 644:  546:  513:  477:  455:  417:  349:  300:  37:ranked 674:This 642:S2CID 622:(PDF) 600:(PDF) 544:S2CID 453:S2CID 415:S2CID 347:S2CID 298:S2CID 27:is a 23:) or 680:stub 511:ISBN 634:doi 571:doi 503:doi 445:doi 407:doi 378:doi 339:doi 290:doi 286:158 96:). 725:: 648:. 640:. 630:54 628:. 624:. 602:. 577:. 567:04 565:. 542:. 538:. 519:. 509:. 483:. 459:. 451:. 441:21 439:. 421:. 413:. 403:37 401:. 374:63 345:. 335:37 333:. 313:^ 304:. 296:. 284:. 272:^ 21:IC 711:e 704:t 697:v 686:. 636:: 573:: 550:. 505:: 447:: 409:: 386:. 380:: 353:. 341:: 292:: 236:) 230:1 224:! 221:m 216:1 210:! 207:m 204:+ 201:n 195:( 174:n 143:n 139:! 135:m 115:n 80:! 77:m 57:m 19:(

Index

probabilistic model
social choice theory
ranked
voting method
permutations


doi
10.1007/s11127-013-0133-3
S2CID
154862595






doi
10.1080/0022250X.2011.597012
S2CID
17266150
"Les théories de l'intérêt général et le problème logique de l'agrégation"
doi
10.3917/reco.634.0659
doi
10.1177/0048393107299684
S2CID
145169622
doi
10.1007/s00355-003-0269-z

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑