Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-k78ct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-02-29T13:48:20.471Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Core and the Stability of Group Choice in Spatial Voting Games

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Norman Schofield
Affiliation:
Washington University
Bernard Grofman
Affiliation:
University of California Irvine
Scott L. Feld
Affiliation:
State University of New York Stony Brook

Abstract

The core of a voting game is the set of undominated outcomes, that is, those that once in place cannot be overturned. For spatial voting games, a core is structurally stable if it remains in existence even if there are small perturbations in the location of voter ideal points. While for simple majority rule a core will exist in games with more than one dimension only under extremely restrictive symmetry conditions, we show that, for certain supramajorities, a core must exist. We also provide conditions under which it is possible to construct a structurally stable core. If there are only a few dimensions, our results demonstrate the stability properties of such frequently used rules as two-thirds and three-fourths. We further explore the implications of our results for the nature of political stability by looking at outcomes in experimental spatial voting games and at Belgian cabinet formation in the late 1970s.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1988

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.)

References

Axelrod, Robert. 1970. Conflict of Interest: A Theory of Divergent Coals with Applications to Politics. Chicago: Markham.Google Scholar
Banks, Jeffrey S. 1985. Sophisticated Voting Outcomes and Agenda Control. Social Choice and Welfare 1:295306.Google Scholar
Banks, Jeffrey S., and Bordes, Georges. 1987. Voting Games, Indifference and Consistent Sequential Choice Rules. University of Rochester. Typescript.Google Scholar
Bell, Colin E. 1978. What Happens When Majority Rule Breaks Down: Some Probability Calculations. Public Choice 33:121–26.Google Scholar
Black, Duncan. 1958. The Theory of Committees and Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brams, Steven J. 1975. Game Theory and Politics. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Budge, Ian, Robertson, David, and Hearl, Derek, eds. 1987. Ideology, Strategy and Party Change: A Spatial Analysis of Post-War Electoral Programmes in Nineteen Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, Linda R. 1979. Cyclic Sets in Multidimensional Voting Models. Journal of Economic Theory 20:112.Google Scholar
Cohen, Linda R., and Matthews, Steven. 1980. Constrained Plott Equilibria, Directional Equilibria, and Global Cycling Sets. Review of Economic Studies 47:975–86.Google Scholar
Copeland, Arthur H. 1951. A Reasonable Social Welfare Function. University of Michigan. Typescript.Google Scholar
Craven, John. 1971. Majority Voting and Social Choice. Review of Economic Studies 38:265–67.Google Scholar
Daalder, Hans. 1971. Cabinets and Party Systems in the Smaller European Democracies. Acta Politico 6:282303.Google Scholar
Davis, Otto, DeGroot, Morris H., and Hinich, Melvin J.. 1972. Social Preference Orderings and Majority Rule. Econometrica 40:147–57.Google Scholar
Demange, Gabrielle. 1982. A Limit Theorem on the Minmax Set. Journal of Mathematical Economics 9:145–62.Google Scholar
Feld, Scott L., and Grofman, Bernard. 1986. Agenda Constraints. University of California, Irvine. Typescript.Google Scholar
Feld, Scott L., and Grofman, Bernard. 1987. Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for a Majority Winner in n-Dimensional Spatial Voting Games: An Intuitive Geometric Approach. American Journal of Political Science 31:709–28.Google Scholar
Feld, Scott L., and Grofman, Bernard. N.d. Majority Rule Outcomes and the Structure of Debate in One-Issue-at-a-Time Decision Making. Public Choice. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Feld, Scott L., Grofman, Bernard, Hartley, Richard, Kilgour, Mark, Miller, Nicholas, and Noviello, Nicholas. N.d. The Uncovered Set in the Spatial Context. Theory and Decision. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Feld, Scott L., Grofman, Bernard, and Miller, Nicholas. 1985. Cycle Lengths and Other Features of Majority Preference in the Spatial Context. Paper presented at the Weingart Conference on Models of Voting, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, John A., and Fiorina, Morris. 1975. Closeness Counts Only in Horseshoes and Dancing. American Political Science Review 69:920–25.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, John A., Fiorina, Morris, and Packel, Edward. 1980. Nonequilibrium Solutions for Legislative Systems. Behavioral Science 25: 140–48.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, John A., and Grether, David. 1974. On a Class of Rational Social Decision Procedures. Journal of Economic Theory 8:471–81.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, John A., McKelvey, Richard D., and Packel, Edward. 1984. Limiting Distributions for Continuous State Markov Models. Social Choice and Welfare 1:4567.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris, and Plott, Charles. 1978. Committee Decisions under Majority Rule: An Experimental Study. American Political Science Review 72:575–98.Google Scholar
Glazer, Amihai, Grofman, Bernard, and Owen, Guillermo. 1985. Imperfect Information Models of Spatial Competition in Electoral Politics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Public Choice Society, New Orleans.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph. 1979. Consistent Majority Rules over Compact Sets of Alternatives. Econometrica 47:627–36.Google Scholar
Grofman, Bernard. 1972. A Note on Some Generalizations of the Paradox of Cyclical Majorities. Public Choice 12:113–14.Google Scholar
Grofman, Bernard. 1981. Mathematical Models of Jury/Juror Decision Making. In Perspectives in Law and Psychology, Vol. 2, The Jury, Judicial, and Trial Processes, ed. Sales, Bruce D.. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Grofman, Bernard. 1982. A Dynamic Model of Protocoalition Formation. Behavioral Science 27:7790.Google Scholar
Grofman, Bernard. N.d. Applications of a Dynamic Model of Protocoalition Formation. In Coalitions in Western Europe, ed. Schofield, Norman. Norwell, MA: Kluwer-Nijhoff. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Grofman, Bernard, Owen, Guillermo, Noviello, Nicholas and Glazer, Amihai. 1987. Stability and Centrality of Legislative Choice in the Spatial Context. American Political Science Review 81: 538–53.Google Scholar
Grofman, Bernard, and Uhlaner, Carole. 1985. Metapreferences and the Reasons for Stability in Social Choice. Thoughts on Broadening and Clarifying the Debate. Theory and Decision 19:3150.Google Scholar
Henriet, Dominique. 1984. The Copeland Choice Function: An Axiomatic Characterization. Laboratoire D'Econometrie de l'Ecole Polytechnic, Paris. Typescript.Google Scholar
Kramer, Gerald H. 1977. Dynamical Model of Political Equilibrium. Journal of Economic Theory 16:310–34.Google Scholar
Kramer, Gerald H., and Klevorick, Alvin K.. 1974. Existence of a “Local” Cooperative Equilibrium in a Class of Voting Games. Review of Economic Studies 41:539–48.Google Scholar
Lucas, William F. 1976. Measuring Power in Weighted Voting Systems, Case Studies in Applied Mathematics. Washington: Mathematics Association of America.Google Scholar
McCubbins, Mathew D., and Schwartz, Thomas. 1985. The Politics of Flatland. Public Choice 46:4560.Google Scholar
McKelvey, Richard D. 1976. Intransitivities in Multidimensional Voting Models and Some Implications for Agenda Control. Journal of Economic Theory 12:472–82.Google Scholar
McKelvey, Richard D. 1979. Genera Conditions for Global Intransitivities in Formal Voting Models. Econometrica 47:10851112.Google Scholar
McKelvey, Richard D. 1986. Covering, Dominance, and Institution Free Properties of Social Choice. American Journal of Political Science 30:282314.Google Scholar
McKelvey, Richard, and Schofield, Norman. 1986. Structural Instability of the Core. Journal of Mathematical Economics 15:179–98.Google Scholar
McKelvey, Richard, and Schofield, Norman. 1987. Generalized Symmetry Conditions at a Core Point. Econometrica 55:923–33.Google Scholar
McKelvey, Richard D., and Wendell, Richard E.. 1976. Voting Equilibria in Multidimensional Choice Spaces. Mathematics of Operations Research 1:144–58.Google Scholar
Margolis, Howard. 1982. Selfishness, Altruism, and Rationality: A Theory of Social Choice. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, S. A. 1980. Pairwise Symmetry Conditions for Voting Equilibria. International Journal of Came Theory 9:141–56.Google Scholar
Miller, Nicholas. 1977. Graph-Theoretical Approaches to Theory of Voting. American Journal of Political Science 21:769803.Google Scholar
Miller, Nicholas. 1980. A New Solution Set for Tournaments and Majority Voting. American Journal of Political Science 24:6896.Google Scholar
Miller, Nicholas. 1983. Pluralism and Social Choice. American Political Science Review 77:734–47.Google Scholar
Miller, Nicholas, Grofman, Bernard, and Feld, Scott L.. 1985. Cycle Avoiding Trajectories and the Uncovered Set. Paper presented at the Weingart Conference on Models of Voting, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena.Google Scholar
Moulin, Herve. 1984. Choosing from a Tournament. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Typescript.Google Scholar
Nakamura, Kenjiro. 1979. The Vetoers in a Simple Game with Ordinal Preferences. International Journal of Game Theory 8:5561.Google Scholar
Owen, Guillermo, and Shapley, Lloyd. 1985. Results on the Strong Point and the Modified Shapley Value. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA. Typescript.Google Scholar
Packel, Edward W. 1981. A Stochastic Solution Concept for n-Person Games. Mathematics of Operations Research 6:349–62.Google Scholar
Plott, Charles R. 1967. A Notion of Equilibrium and Its Possibility under Majority Rule. American Economic Review 57:787806.Google Scholar
Riker, William H. 1980. Implications from the Disequilibrium of Majority Rule for the Study of Institutions. American Political Science Review 74:432–46.Google Scholar
Riker, William H. 1982. Liberalism versus Populism. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Romer, Thomas, and Rosenthal, Howard. 1978. Political Resource Allocation, Controlled Agendas and the Status Quo. Public Choice 33:2743.Google Scholar
Sartori, Giovanni. 1966. European Political Parties: The Case of Polarized Pluralism. In Political Parties and Political Development, ed. La Palombara, Joseph and Weiner, Myron. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Schofield, Norman. 1978a. Instability of Simple Dynamic Games. Review of Economic Studies 65:575–94.Google Scholar
Schofield, Norman. 1978b. The Theory of Dynamic Games. In Game Theory and Political Science ed. Ordeshook, Peter C.. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Schofield, Norman. 1980. Generic Properties of Simple Bergson-Samuelson Welfare Functions. Journal of Mathematical Economics 7:175–92.Google Scholar
Schofield, Norman. 1983a. Generic Instability of Majority Rule. Review of Economic Studies 50:696705.Google Scholar
Schofield, Norman. 1983b. Equilibria in Simple Dynamic Games. In Social Choice and Welfare ed. Pattanaik, P. K. and Salles, M.. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Schofield, Norman. 1984a. Social Equilibrium and Cycles on Compact Sets. Journal of Economic Theory 33:5971.Google Scholar
Schofield, Norman. 1984b. Classification Theorem for Smooth Social Choice on a Manifold. Social Choice and Welfare 1:187210.Google Scholar
Schofield, Norman. 1984c. Existence of Equilibrium on a Manifold. Mathematics of Operations Research 9:545–57.Google Scholar
Schofield, Norman. 1985. Social Choice and Democracy. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Schofield, Norman. 1986. Existence of a “Structurally Stable” Equilibrium for a Noncollegial Voting Rule. Public Choice 51:267–84.Google Scholar
Schofield, Norman. N.d.(a). The Spatial Theory of Democracy and Coalition Governments in Europe. In Coalitions in Western Europe, ed. author. Norwell, MA: Kluwer-Nijhoff. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Schofield, Norman. N.d.(b). Stability of Coalition Governments in Western Europe: 1945–1986. European Journal of Political Economy. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1979. Institutional Arrangements and Equilibrium in Multidimensional Voting Models. American Journal of Political Science 23:2759.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A., and Weingast, Barry R.. 1981. Structure-Induced Equilibrium and Legislative Choice. Public Choice 37:503–19.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A., and Weingast, Barry R.. 1984. Uncovered Sets and Sophisticated Voting Outcomes with Implications for Agenda Institutions. American Journal of Political Science 28:4974.Google Scholar
Simpson, Phillip. 1969. On Defining Areas of Voter Bias: Professor Tullock on Stable Voting. Quarterly Journal of Economics 83:478–90.Google Scholar
Sloss, Judith. 1973. Stable Outcomes in Majority Rule Voting Games. Public Choice 15:1948.Google Scholar
Slutsky, Stephen. 1979. Equilibrium under α-Majority Voting. Econometrica 47:1113–25.Google Scholar
Straffin, Philip. 1980. Topics in the Theory of Voting. Cambridge, MA: Birkhauser.Google Scholar
Straffin, Philip, and Grofman, Bernard. 1984. Parliamentary Coalitions: A Tour of Models. Mathematics Magazine 57:259–74.Google Scholar
Strnad, James F. 1985. The Structure of Continuous-Valued Neutral Monotonic Social Functions. Social Choice and Welfare 2:181–95.Google Scholar
Wilson, Rick, and Herzberg, Roberta. 1984. Voting Is Only a Block Away: Theory and Experiments on Blocking Coalitions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Public Choice Society, Phoenix.Google Scholar
Wuffle, A, Feld, Scott L., Owen, Guillermo, and Grofman, Bernard. N.d. Finagle's Law and the Finagle Point. American Journal of Political Science. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Zablocki, Benjamin. 1971. The Joyful Community. New York: Pelican.Google Scholar