Consider the following two sets of individuals and their group preference rankings, aggregated using the same voting rule. 1: individual preferences: x>y>z>w, y>z>w>x, and z>w>x>y group preferences: x>Gy, z>Gx, w>Gx, y>Gw, y>Gz and z>Gw 2:individual preferences: y>z>x>w, y>w>x>z, and y>w>z>x group preferences: y>Gx, y>Gw, z>Gy, x>Gw, z>Gx, and z>Gw Question: Which of Arrow's conditions (P, D, I, or Transitivity) is violated by their group preferences? (hint: checking I requires comparing the outcomes in the two different groups to find a violation).

Consider the following two sets of individuals and their group preference rankings, aggregated using the same voting rule. 1: individual preferences: x>y>z>w, y>z>w>x, and z>w>x>y group preferences: x>Gy, z>Gx, w>Gx, y>Gw, y>Gz and z>Gw 2:individual preferences: y>z>x>w, y>w>x>z, and y>w>z>x group preferences: y>Gx, y>Gw, z>Gy, x>Gw, z>Gx, and z>Gw Question: Which of Arrow's conditions (P, D, I, or Transitivity) is violated by their group preferences? (hint: checking I requires comparing the outcomes in the two different groups to find a violation).

Principles of Microeconomics

7th Edition

ISBN:9781305156050

Author:N. Gregory Mankiw

Publisher:N. Gregory Mankiw

Chapter22: Frontiers Of Microeconomics

Section22.2: Political Economy

Problem 2QQ

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

Suppose that friends Jennifer, Stephanie, and Megan cannot agree on how much to spend for a bouquet of flowers to send to a person who allowed them to use her beach house for the weekend. Jennifer wants to buy a moderately priced bouquet, Stephanie wants to buy an expensive bouquet, and Megan wants to buy a very expensive bouquet. Assuming no paradox of voting, majority voting will result in the decision to buy Multiple Choice an inexpensive bouquet. a very expensive bouquet. a moderately priced bouquet. an expensive bouquet. B
Arrow's impossibility theorem states that under certain assumptions about preferences, no voting system exists that satisfies all of the following properties: • Unanimity • Transitivity • Independence of irrelevant alternatives • No dictators
Which of the following is true? a. Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem states that There is no voting method that will satisfy a reasonable set of fairness criteria when there are three or candidates. b. Gibbard-Satterthwaite's theorem states that there is a voting method is completely resistant to strategic voting. c. None of the given choices d. May's Theorem states that the majority method will always have a winner.
Consider the bargaining problem of splitting a pie of size 1 with utility u(x1) = x1 for player 1 and v(x2) = 2x2 − x22 for player 2, where x1 and x2 denote the share of the pie for player 1 and 2 respectively. What is the Nash bargaining solution if the disagreement outcome is any d1 and d2 in S (utility possibility frontier)?
Does traditional one-person-one-vote (1p1v) majority voting allow voters to directly express differences in strengths of preference? Does quadratic voting do any better? Discuss the differences and then explain which system you prefer, and why.
Explain why majority rule respects the preferencesof the median voter rather than those of the averagevoter.
Consider a Downsian electoral competition over the line [−1, 1] where there are 11 voters. Each voter has a single-peaked preferences over the policies. Voter 1’s peak is at -1, voter 2’s at -0.8, ..., voter 6’s at 0, voter 7’s at 0.2, ..., and voter 11’s at 1. Suppose there are two candidates, {D, R} and if they get equal votes the tie is broken by a coin toss—that is, both wins the election with probability 1/2. (a) What is the Nash Equilibrium of this game? (b) Now suppose that there is an ideological candidate C that positions himself at -1 whatever the other candidates do. Is there a Nash Equilibrium of the game? If so, what is it? (c) Suppose now that there is another ideological candidate at 1. Is there an equilibrium and what is it?
Consider the bargaining problem of splitting a pie of size 1 with utility u(x1) = x1 for player 1 and v(x2) = 2x2 − x22 for player 2, where x1 and x2 denote the share of the pie for player 1 and 2 respectively. a) Consider the bargaining problem of the two players. Find the utility possibility frontier S. b) What is the Nash bargaining solution for this problem (i.e., on which division of the pie (?₁,?₂) will players agree), if the disagreement outcome (the utilities players obtain in case of disagreement) is d1 = d2 = 0? c) What is the Nash bargaining solution if the disagreement outcome is any d1 and d2 in S?
You are one of five risk-neutral bidders participating in an independent private values auction. Each bidder perceives that all other bidders’ valuations for the item are evenly distributed between $10,000 and $30,000. For each of the following auction types, determine your optimal bidding strategy if you value the item at $22,000. a. First-price, sealed-bid auction. b. Dutch auction. c. Second-price, sealed-bid auction. d. English auction.
Identify the following weighted voting system. one person, one vote veto power system null system dictatorship
Assume there are three voters: A, B and C. Voter preferences can be ranked along a left-to-right spectrum that ranges from 1-9; 1 being the most left leaning preference and 9 being the most right leaning preference. Suppose these voters will choose between candidates Smith and Jones in an upcoming election. Assuming the following voter preferences: True/False Explain: If the median voter theorem holds, candidates Smith and Jones will either both adopt preference 5 OR one will adopt preference 4 while the other adopts preference 6. B. Suppose the electorate becomes more polarized; A moves from 4 to 1 while C moves from 6 to 9. B remains at 4. How does the median voter model predict candidates Smith and Jones will change their preference? C. Keeping the assumptions from B, how does the election result change if a tax on non-voters doubles the number of voters while preserving the distribution of preferences? D. If the tax in C induces 100% compliance (everyone votes), did this tax…