Skip to main content
Log in

Varieties of failure of monotonicity and participation under five voting methods

  • Published:
Theory and Decision Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In voting theory, monotonicity is the axiom that an improvement in the ranking of a candidate by voters cannot cause a candidate who would otherwise win to lose. The participation axiom states that the sincere report of a voter’s preferences cannot cause an outcome that the voter regards as less attractive than the one that would result from the voter’s non-participation. This article identifies three binary distinctions in the types of circumstances in which failures of monotonicity or participation can occur. Two of the three distinctions apply to monotonicity, while one of those and the third apply to participation. The distinction that is unique to monotonicity is whether the voters whose changed rankings demonstrate non-monotonicity are better off or worse off. The distinction that is unique to participation is whether the marginally participating voter causes his first choice to lose or his last choice to win. The overlapping distinction is whether the profile of voters’ rankings has a Condorcet winner or a cycle at the top. This article traces the occurrence of all of the resulting combination of characteristics in the voting methods that can exhibit failures of monotonicity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Black D. (1958) The theory of committees and elections. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell D. E., Kelly J. S. (2002) Non-monotonicity does not imply the no-show paradox. Social Choice and Welfare 19: 513–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coombs C. H. (1964) A theory of data. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Coombs C. H., Cohen J. L., Chamberlin J. R. (1984) An empirical study of some election systems. American Psychologist 39: 140–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felsenthal D. S., Maoz Z. (1992) Normative properties of four single-stage multi-winner electroral procedures. Behavioral Science 37: 109–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn P. C. (1977) Condorcet social choice functions. SIAM Journal of Applied Mathematics 33: 469–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn P. C. (1982) Monotonicity paradoxes in the theory of voting. Discrete Applied Mathematics 4: 119–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn P. C., Brams S. J. (1983) Paradoxes of preferential voting. Mathematics Magazine 56: 207–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gierzynski, A., Hamilton, W., & Smith, W. (2009). Burlington Vermont 2009 IRV mayor election: Thwarted-majority, non-monotonicity & other failures (oops). Range Voting Organization. Accessed August 23, 2011, from http://rangevoting.org/Burlington.html.

  • McLean, I. & Urken, A. B. (Eds. & trans). (1995). Classics of social choice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

  • Miller, R. N. (2012). Monotonicity failure in IRV elections with three candidates. Paper presented at the world meeting of the public choice societies, Miami, March 8–12, 2012. Accessed March 15, 2012, from http://userpages.umbc.edu/~nmiller/MF&IRV.pdf.

  • Moulin H. (1988) Condorcet’s principle implies the no show paradox. Journal of Economic Theory 45: 53–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nanson, E. J. (1883). Methods of elections. Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria, 19, 197–240. In I. McLean & A. B. Urken (Eds. & trans), Classics of social choice (pp. 321–359). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1995.

  • Nurmi H. (1999) Voting paradoxes and how to deal with them. Springer, Heidelberg

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Potthoff R. F. (2011) Condorcet polling. Public Choice 148: 67–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W. D. (2007). The Irish 1990 presidential election, won by Mary Robinson: ”Success” or “failure” for instant runoff voting (ITV)? Range Voting Organization. Accessed August 23, 2011, from http://rangevoting.org/Ireland1990.html.

  • Straffin P. D. (1980) Topics in the theory of voting. Birkhäuser, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodall D. R. (1997) Monotonicity of single-seat preferential election methods. Discrete Applied Mathematics 77: 81–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dan S. Felsenthal.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Felsenthal, D.S., Tideman, N. Varieties of failure of monotonicity and participation under five voting methods. Theory Decis 75, 59–77 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-012-9306-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-012-9306-7

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation