Abstract
The theory of social choice is concerned with the problem of aggregating the preferences of several persons into a single preference order. The problem has the same structure as that of aggregating the preference orders of a single person with regard to several aspects of alternatives into a single preference order on the set of alternatives. For this reason, the theory of social choice comes logically not under the topic of collective action (as one might suppose) but rather under the topic of multi-objective decisions. This is so because the several participants in a situation defined as a problem of social choice do not really select courses of action among several available ones when they present their preference orders on a set of alternatives. Therefore they are not ‘actors’, as actors are defined in the theory of decision. To be sure, there are situations where voters do choose strategies, i.e., choose among different preference orders to present, which may or may not represent their true preferences but which they believe will be more likely to lead to a more desirable aggregated order. These situations can be considered as n-person decision problems, and we will examine them in the context of non-cooperative n-person games (see Chapter 13 below). At this time, however, we will suppose that each voter acts ‘sincerely’, that is, presents his ‘actual’ preference order. The decision is now up to some agency, which must combine all these submitted preference orders into a ‘social’ preference order. Thus, the individual preference orders enter the problem as different aspects involved in a decision situation, which is just what is inherent in the problem of multiobjective decision making. Each voter’s preference order is a ‘criterion’. In general, all the criteria cannot be optimally served simultaneously. One must somehow arrive at some ‘compromise’.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Citizen sovereignty would be violated if decisions were made entirely independently of preference profiles.
Named after Marquis de Condorcet (1743–1794), a French mathematician and philosopher, who posed important problems related to the theory of democratic decisions.
The designations are justified by the circumstance that if P(Y, D)# 0, R(Y, D)=P(Y, D). The weak Condorcet condition says nothing about F(Y, D) in situations when P(Y, D)= 0. The Condorcet condition does say something about it, provided R(Y, D) 01 (i.e., although no alternative beats every other by a simple majority, there are some alternatives that are not beaten by any other). The strong Condorcet condition is stronger than the Condorcet condition, because it implies the latter but is not implied by it.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1989 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rapoport, A. (1989). Theory of Social Choice. In: Decision Theory and Decision Behaviour. Theory and Decision Library, vol 15. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7840-0_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7840-0_8
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-4047-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-7840-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive