Skip to main content Accessibility help
×

We are experiencing issues with the responsiveness of Cambridge Core and the Cambridge Aspire website. Users may experience website error pages or timeout error pages. Our teams are working to resolve the issues. We apologise for any inconvenience caused.

Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-br6xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-01T17:39:30.645Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Background and Motivation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2013

Get access

Summary

The theory of voting in committees began with the basic contributions of Borda [1781] and Condorcet [1785]. Borda had been concerned about the inadequacy of choice by plurality voting, and he suggested a different method of assigning marks to alternatives, a method now known as Borda's rule (see Black [1958], pp. 156-9). It is interesting that Borda's method is still a subject of active research (see, e.g., Young [1974] and Gardner [1977]). Indeed, Borda's rule also serves as an important example in this book (see Example 3.1.18).

Condorcet developed an extensive formal theory of voting (see Black [1958], pp. 159-80). One of his profound discoveries was the “paradox of voting,” which is known also as Condorcet's paradox. His most important contribution was the formulation of the Condorcet condition (i.e., the alternative that receives a majority, against each of the other alternatives, should be chosen). This condition plays an important role in so many works in modern social choice theory that it is impossible to give a full record of its use. We, also, apply the Condorcet condition to the theory of committees (see, e.g., Theorem 3.2.5).

Nanson [1882] examined several systems of voting and suggested a modification of Borda's rule that is compatible with the Condorcet condition. (Borda's rule itself does not satisfy the Condorcet condition). Further details on Nanson's work may be found in Black [1958].

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×