2 Conditions on SWFs
We now define a series of conditions on SWFs.
Definition 2.1 (Unrestricted Domain - U).
A SWF has unrestricted domain if it determines social preferences for as large as possible a family of measurable elections. In other words, . This is equivalent to taking the ballot domain with .
Definition 2.2 (Condorcet Cycle Domain - CC).
For , a SWF has Condorcet cycle domain if it determines social preferences for elections in which all votes are even permutations of . Writing , the Condorcet Cycle condition means that . In other words, this is the ballot domain with .
Note that all SWFs which satisfy U can be restricted to SWFs which satisfy CC. However, we will see examples where SWFs on the unrestricted domain can behave unexpectedly but, after restricting them to the Condorcet cycle domain, their behaviour becomes more predictable. Therefore it is of independent interest to try to construct unexpected SWFs on the Condorcet cycle domain. (It is also feasible that a SWF satisfying U and IV would lose the IV property when restricted to the Condorcet cycle domain, but we do not cover any such cases here).
The following results mean that as long as we impose one of U and CC, we can always assume the numeric properties of our domain that come with an increasing, intermediate domain.
Lemma 2.3.
and are intermediate ballots.
Proof.
For and for any , either or ; in either case, there can be no in the set, so intermediacy holds vacuously.
On the other hand, for , suppose we have with promoted by . We let and define . Now given we define by transposing and ; that is, and . On the other hand, given for some with , we have , so either or . In the first case, we let be such that , and we transpose and to get with and . Symmetrically, in the second case, we let be such that , and we transpose and to get with and .
Clearly we have , and as long as we get . Moreover , so inductively we have for . Moreover, each transposition guarantees that is promoted by , and also by . Finally and , but so and . Now for any two other candidates and , we have if and only if , since is promoted by ; but and have never been transposed to construct any intermediate , so if and only if .
Therefore and are identical. So we have broken the promotion into a series of promotions covering each intermediate value between and , so indeed there exists such that and is promoted both by and by (we can chain together promotions, as remarked after Definition 1.4).
∎
Lemma 2.4.
and are increasing ballots.
Proof.
In , we have . Take any with , and any with . Now we define to be the unique ranking for which all are in the same order as in , but is sent to the lowest position (so ) and to the highest position (so ). It is immediate that is promoted by . Now if then setting gives that the ballot is increasing. Otherwise, we have , and we apply the intermediate property of proved in Lemma 2.3 to find with and promoted by .
In , we must separately deal with the cases of and . In the former case, we have , and we must have and . We always set and we notice that whether or , is promoted by . Similarly, in the latter case, we have ; now must be , and has that is promoted by as required.
∎
Thus, either U or CC is sufficient to guarantee that the election domain is an increasing, intermediate ballot domain.
The following condition was introduced by Maskin in \autocitemaskin, as an alternative to Arrow’s stricter IIA condition.
Definition 2.5 (Modified Irrelevance of Independent Alternatives - MIIA).
A SWF satisfies the MIIA condition if, for two candidates and , there exists a “relative SWF”: a function such that for all we have .
Intuitively, if for two elections, each voter places the same order between candidates and with the same number of other candidates between them, then the results of those two elections must give the same ranking between and .
Often this function will be given by the sign of some real value, so we define by for , for and for . Note that if for some , we have .
We now define the anonymity condition, which states that the SWF is unaffected by which voters submit which ballots, and instead is determined only by how many voters (either by count or by measure) vote in a given way. In light of this, we define by (or for finite ), and we let .
Definition 2.6 (Anonymity - A).
A SWF satisfies anonymity if there exists a function such that .
Remark.
and determine one another. If then , and if then we can pick on which and disagree; then we pick with , and , so .
We can think of as the “weight-based” SWF. For a finite SWF satisfying anonymity, this is equivalent to the condition that the voters can be permuted in any way.
Lemma 2.7.
Let be a SWF on finite. Then satisfies anonymity if and only if for any permutation we have .
Proof.
In the forward direction, suppose satisfies anonymity. Then . So it suffices to show that . Indeed,
|
|
|
|
(2.i) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The penultimate equality holds because is a bijection, so and have the same cardinality for any .
For the converse, suppose that two elections and have ; it will suffice to show that . For each , note that , so . Therefore we can define a bijection . Now we let be the union of these over each , which is a permutation of . Then , so , as required.
∎
Note that if we also have the MIIA condition, then the functions can also be replaced by functions in a corresponding manner. We let by , or for finite, and let . We also define by .
Remark.
We can define to act on giving a result in , by setting
|
|
|
(2.ii) |
Then .
Now there exists such that , by the following lemma:
Lemma 2.8.
Let be a SWF on a ballot domain satisfying MIIA and A. Then for any two candidates and we can define a weight-based relative SWF such that .
Indeed, and will be in one to one correspondence; if then . On the other hand, if then we can pick on which they disagree; then we can choose such that . But then
|
|
|
|
(2.iii) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so and disagree on some in .
Proof.
For any , we need to prove that all take the same value . Then we can define for any choice of .
Suppose that and in have . For each with , let with . Note that the function is an injection. Now, since is on a ballot domain, we can define and by and ; so for . Then , and the same goes for . So for all , either is not equal to for any , and , or for some , and . Hence , so by condition A.
Now as required.
∎
We define a partial order on corresponding to the order we already have on . We say that if, for all , we have
|
|
|
(2.iv) |
In other words, majorises . Clearly if then .
We can define a whole family of weaker anonymity conditions by requiring to factor into some for a refinement of (i.e. with for some ). Similarly, for finite, we can define a weaker anonymity conditions by requiring to be invariant only under some subgroup of the permutations , as opposed to the entire set. The important case of transitive anonymity, in which we are given only that this subgroup acts transitively on , will be addressed in forthcoming papers.
As well as some amount of symmetry between voters we expect symmetry between candidates. For a permutation we can apply to or to in the natural way: we define and to be the unique weak ordering such that for all with and we have .
Definition 2.9 (Neutrality - N).
A SWF satisfies neutrality if the candidates are treated symmetrically. That is to say, for any permutation and for all such that we have .
We would hope that an election satisfying both N and MIIA has and agreeing on their intersections for any two pairs and . To guarantee this, we require another property of the domain:
Definition 2.10 (Separable domain).
An election domain is separable if, for any two pairs of candidates and , if the intersection between and is non-empty then there exists a permutation such that , and .
Lemma 2.11.
Let be a SWF on a separable domain satisfying MIIA and N. Then for any candidates and , if is non-empty then and .
Proof.
Since is non-empty, the definition of separable domain gives the existence of such that , and . Moreover
|
|
|
|
(2.v) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
as required. Now since fulfils condition N, for all we have . Then
|
|
|
|
(2.vi) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But , and by definition this value ranges over all of , so as required.
∎
Thus we can define a single and a single describing the relative SWF between any two candidates. This result now extends to the weight-based SWFs:
Lemma 2.12.
Let be a SWF on a separable ballot domain satisfying MIIA, A and N. Then for any candidates and , if is non-empty then and .
Proof.
We pick . We can partition into measurable sets for all with . Now we select with , and with , and we let and . Now for each we partition into for each with . We define by for . We also partition into for each with . Then we define by for and for ; these are both in as it is a ballot domain.
Now and so and intersect. Since the domain is separable, we get a permutation with , , and . Applying Lemma 2.11, we have , so as required. Moreover, , so for any choice of we have , so as required.
∎
Thus we get a set , a measuring function and a relative, measure-based SWF with ; as always, uniquely determines just as uniquely determines .
As in Lemmas 2.3 and 2.4, we now confirm that U and CC are separable domains.
Lemma 2.13.
For either or , the ballot domain with ballot is a separable domain.
Proof.
For , any permutation gives , so we need only construct any with and . Since we know and the existence of is immediate.
For , if then , whereas if then . These are disjoint, so the domains and are disjoint. On the other hand, if then we take defined by ; then trivially , so , and , as required.
∎
This means that given either condition U or CC, we can assume all results applying to elections on separable, increasing, intermediate ballot domains.
Intuitively it should be the case that receiving votes is good for a candidate. Two conditions are generally used to force this; the Pareto condition and the positive responsiveness condition.
Definition 2.14 (Pareto - P).
A SWF satisfies the Pareto condition if, whenever all voters prefer candidate to , the same must be the case in the final result. Formally, for with for all , we have .
Definition 2.15 (Positive Responsiveness - PR).
A SWF satisfies positive responsiveness if whenever is promoted by , we have .
The idea of “promotion” is difficult to work with. Since we will only be studying ballot elections with increasing ballots and satisfying MIIA, we can check for the PR condition using a simpler property based on the existence of the functions which MIIA gives. Lemma 2.17 establishes that for an increasing ballot election satisfying MIIA, this condition is equivalent to PR.
Definition 2.16 (Positive Responsiveness given MIIA - PRm).
A SWF satisfying MIIA also satisfies the PR condition if for any two candidates and , and for any two relative elections where , we have .
Lemma 2.17.
An increasing ballot election with MIIA satisfies PRm if and only if it satisfies PR.
Proof.
Let be an increasing ballot election satisfying the MIIA and PRm conditions and let be its relative SWFs. Suppose that is promoted by . Then for any and for any , letting and , we have:
-
(i)
, so
-
(ii)
so
Thus . Letting and , we have . But this applied to all , so . Then by the PRm condition, , so the PR condition holds.
Now suppose that satisfies PR, and take two candidates and and two relative elections in with . Let . Define the function by . Note that is measurable, as the cartesian product measure of is just the discrete measure (because is finite). For any pair in the image of , note that , and choose any .
Then, since is an increasing ballot, let be such that is promoted by . Then the functions and are both functions with finite domains, and therefore measurable. Define by and by ; these are both measurable functions, so they are in as it is a ballot election. Then is promoted by , so by PR we have , giving condition PRm.
∎
Note that the Pareto condition is often much weaker than the Positive Responsiveness condition, as it says nothing except in the very extreme case of unanimity among voters when comparing two candidates. On the other hand, the Positive Responsiveness condition does not necessarily imply the Pareto principle, as PR doesn’t rule out the possibility of always returning the same ranking. Even imposing the neutrality condition, could always return a -way tie, whereas the Pareto principle precludes this.
The following condition is sometimes included in the PR condition but we will consider it separately.
Definition 2.18 (Intermediate Value - IV).
If for two elections and and two candidates and , is promoted by , and we have whereas , then there exists an “intermediate” election such that is promoted by both and , and .
The IV condition essentially says that we can continuously improve a candidate’s position relative to another candidate until their positions cross in the final ranking, and at that moment they will tie. We would only expect this to be the case in a world with a continuum of possible ballots; in other words, when . We will only consider the IV condition in these cases.
Again, we can verify the IV condition for SWFs on increasing, intermediate domains with MIIA using the simpler IVm condition:
Definition 2.19 (Intermediate Value given MIIA - IVm).
A SWF satisfying MIIA also satisfies the IV condition if for any two candidates and , and for any such that and , there exists with and .
Lemma 2.20.
An increasing, intermediate ballot election with MIIA satisfies IV if and only if it satisfies IVm.
Proof.
Let be a SWF satisfying the MIIA and IV conditions, let be its relative SWFs and let be two vectors in for some and , with and . Let . For pick , and use the definition of an increasing ballot to pick such that is promoted by . Now both and are given by functions on , and since these are functions on finite domains, they are measurable.
Now define by and by . Since has a ballot domain, . Moreover, is promoted by , and . Thus and . Now applying the IV condition, we find that there exists such that is promoted by both and , and . Setting , we have , and , giving condition IVm.
Now let be a SWF on an intermediate ballot domain satisfying the MIIA and IVm conditions and let be its relative SWFs. Suppose that is promoted by and that and . Now let and . Since is promoted by , we know that . Now we have and . Thus by IVm there exists with and .
Meanwhile, for each triple with promoted by we carry out the following procedure: if we set , and if we set ; otherwise, we apply the definition of the intermediate ballot to find such that is promoted by both and , and where . This gives a function on finite domain .
Now for each voter , we have and with promoted by ; and
|
|
|
(2.vii) |
so we can define . This is a measurable function, so (as is a ballot election). Clearly is promoted by both and , and . Also, , so we have condition IV.
∎
These results taken together allow us to simplify our analysis of SWFs that are sufficiently well-behaved. On the other hand, it is often possible to start with relative SWFs and check that they corresponds to a full SWF. To prepare for this construction, we define the following “consistent” sets of values we can get for the relative rankings of three candidate:
Definition 2.21 (Consistent multisets).
A multiset of cardinality three, with elements drawn from , is consistent if it is one of the following:
-
1.
-
2.
-
3.
-
4.
Otherwise the multiset is “inconsistent”.
If we take a weak ordering on a set of three candidates , then the consistent multisets are the ones that could arise from finding , and , as we will verify in the proof of the following Lemma.
Lemma 2.22.
Given a family of relative SWFs for each , there exists an SWF with for all if and only if for all :
-
1.
for all we have , and
-
2.
for all , the multiset is consistent.
Proof.
Suppose that does exist with for all . Take any and . Now let . If , then , while , satisfying condition 1; but the same goes if , or if and .
Similarly, taking , and let . Now we consider two cases. If all three candidates are tied, then the multiset described in condition 2 is , which is consistent. Otherwise, there must be one maximal or minimal candidate of the three; assume without loss of generality that this is . Then one of and is and the other is ; so the multiset is one of , and ; these are all consistent.
On the other hand, suppose that conditions 1 and 2 are met. Then we define as follows. We construct a graph with vertices corresponding to the set of candidates, and for each pair we add an edge between and when . Note that these edges can be undirected, as condition 1 ensures that if then . Now if in this graph and , then by condition 2 we must have , because the only consistent multiset containing twice is ; and therefore the graph is a disjoint collection of cliques. We call these sets for some .
Now we construct a new directed graph on vertices , and we add an edge from to if, for some and , we have . This definition is independent of our choice of and , because if we apply condition 2 to , with , we have and , so the multiset is ; then , so by condition 1 we have ; applying this again with , and we get .
Now is in if and only if is not; they cannot both be edges due to condition 1 but if neither is an edge then and , so and were connected in and they formed one clique after all. Therefore is a tournament. Suppose there is a cycle in the tournament, with all edges. Then there is an edge from to (or else, taking , and , and applying condition 2 to we get one of or , both of which are inconsistent), so we get a smaller cycle. We repeat this until we get a 3-cycle, which corresponds to the inconsistent multiset , a contradiction. So instead, there is a total order between the vertices of .
Now we define based on these two graphs. We say that . For , if in , then the result between them is a tie, so we write and . Otherwise, they are in different connected components; say and . Then we write if is an edge and if is an edge. Clearly if and only if , and if and only if ; neither occur if and only if . Moreover, is a weak ordering: if and then ; and if and then .
∎
2.1 Borda Rules
We now define the (weighted) Borda rules, which are the obvious examples of SWFs meeting the MIIA condition.
Definition 2.23 ((Weighted) Borda rule).
For a finite set of voters with weights , or for an infinite set of voters with a measurable weight function , the weighted Borda rule is defined as follows. We define
|
|
|
|
|
(2.viii) |
|
|
|
|
|
Now we let .
Now , so we let
|
|
|
|
(2.ix) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The equivalent for finite is
|
|
|
(2.x) |
Thus is a function of , and we can write . Then satisfies MIIA with . Moreover, is defined symmetrically for all , so satisfies the neutrality condition.
We call a Borda rule “positive” if across and “non-negative” if across , and so on for “negative” and “non-positive”. Equation 2.ix means that a non-negative Borda rule satisfies PRm, and that a non-negative Borda rule with satisfies P.
Moreover, on a ballot domain with infinite, we have IVm. Indeed, we will construct to be an infinite family of measurable subsets of with and whenever . We let and , and then labelling the rationals in with the natural numbers, we define each in turn to contain all with and , and to be contained in all with and ; once is defined for all rational we let for irrational be the union of for all ; clearly this satisfies our criteria.
Then for relative elections and with and and , we define by on and elsewhere. Now is a continuous function on , with and (as these values map to and respectively under ). Thus by the intermediate value theorem there exists with , and we have and as required.
If is constant across all of then the Borda rule is “unweighted”. Since scaling by a positive scalar doesn’t affect , there are only three such rules: the positive unweighted Borda rule with , the negative unweighted Borda rule with , and the “tie rule” with , in which case the SWF always returns a tie between all candidates in .
For any unweighted Borda rule, we have
|
|
|
|
(2.xi) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here . Therefore is a function of , so satisfies the anonymity condition. Again, this also applies to the finite case.
Between Borda and non-Borda SWFs we can also consider “weakly Borda” SWFs, which agree with a Borda rule (for ) whenever it is decisive but are sometimes able to break ties.
Definition 2.24 (Weakly Borda).
A SWF is weakly Borda if there exists a Borda rule for (i.e. not the tie rule) such that for all , and for two candidates and , we have . We also say that is weakly Borda with respect to .
Note that any Borda rule except for the tie rule is weakly Borda with respect to itself. We call a rule “strongly non-Borda” if it is not weakly Borda or the tie rule.
The anonymity condition A should mean that the only sensible Borda weights to take are unweighted ones. We formalise this in Lemma 2.25, which is useful for demonstrating that a SWF is not Borda; it allows us to check only the unweighted Borda rules, and not to worry about all the weighted Borda rules.
Lemma 2.25.
For an election domain containing a ballot domain with ballot , if a SWF fulfils condition A and is weakly Borda with respect to a Borda rule then it is weakly Borda with respect to an unweighted Borda rule .
Proof.
We consider the case of infinite; for finite, an identical argument works, letting be for any set of voters .
Consider the function . For brevity, we denote the interval as and the interval as . We then denote and , and we write for .
Furthermore, let and be two distinct votes in . There must be two candidates and for which but (otherwise and give identical total orders of and are therefore equal). Let and , and let .
Now is an increasing function of ; we take to be the infimum of all values for which . Now , as it is the supremum of for all (since is the union for all of ), and for we have . On the other hand, so . But for all we have , so .
Now, if then we set and . On the other hand, if then we have . Now we take a measurable subset of of measure , and we set and .
Now we have partitioned into and with , on and on . Since is a ballot election, we can find defined by for and for . Now for the election we have
|
|
|
|
(2.xii) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If then and, since is weakly Borda, .
Similarly, we can construct , and then and partitioning such that , on and on . Then setting to be the election with for and for , we find that
|
|
|
|
(2.xiii) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Again, if then and, since is weakly Borda, . But since , and satisfies anonymity, . Therefore for at least one election out of the two elections and we have . Suppose without loss of generality that . Then , so on all but a zero-measure subset of . Similarly on all but a zero-measure subset of . Then for all and for all , (we are abusing notation to write for the constant weight function ). Therefore is weakly Borda with respect to the unweighted Borda rule with sign .
∎
We now proceed to the main results of this paper.
4 Condorcet cycle domain and anonymity
In this section we prove that on a Condorcet cycle domain, the conditions A, N, MIIA and PR do indeed force the SWF to be the positive unweighted Borda or the tie rule. In the finite case, the PR condition is only needed to rule out the negative unweighted Borda rule. In the infinite case, measurability is sufficient to force to be an unweighted Borda rule, and PR guarantees that it is not negative, but without measurability there exist pathological counterexamples, even satisfying P. On the other hand, condition P is stronger in the finite cases and in the measurable case, ruling out everything except for the positive unweighted Borda rule.
In all of these cases, note that by conditions A, N and MIIA, and since the domain is a ballot domain, must correspond to a unique weight-based relative SWF . Now for all , is the set of measurable functions from onto ; and is the set of two-dimensional non-negative vectors where for infinite or for . On the other hand, , and . Now since , we have , so the behaviour of on determines its behaviour on by , and therefore on all of . Therefore is uniquely determined by a function , where in the infinite case and in the case of , by
|
|
|
(4.i) |
|
|
|
In order to establish or disprove condition PRm we use the following lemma:
Lemma 4.1.
For any , the SWF satisfies PRm if and only if is a non-increasing function.
Proof.
Suppose first that is increasing. Then suppose that and are two relative elections in , where . Then . But , and is non-increasing, so as required for condition PRm. On the other hand, for in , we have in , so as we have seen , so as required. All of is made up of and , so this completes the first direction of the lemma.
Now suppose is not non-increasing. Then there exists such that . Setting if is finite and otherwise, let and . Then but so condition PRm does not hold. Thus PRm holds if and only if is non-increasing, as required.
∎
First we deal with the case of finite.
Theorem 4.2.
Any SWF on finite and satisfying CC, MIIA, A and N is an unweighted Borda rule. If P is also met, then the SWF must be the unweighted positive Borda rule. Alternatively, if PR is also met, then the SWF must be the unweighted positive Borda rule or the tie rule.
In order to prove this result and subsequent results across this paper
and forthcoming papers,
we will use the following critical lemma.
Lemma 4.3.
For let and suppose . Moreover, let be such that , and suppose that for all with , the multiset is consistent. Then is given by for some .
Proof.
Suppose first that for some integer . Now so . The multiset is consistent, but it has only one distinct element, so it must be .
On the other hand, for any we let be the largest integer less than , and we let be the smallest integer greater than . We let . Now either , in which case , or or . In the first case, we set . In the second case, we note that by taking the triple we have ; then we set . In the third case we also set .
We observe that if for with , and for with , then for . Indeed, given , we take and such that . This is possible as can range in value from to . Then and , and so is consistent; this forces .
Now we carry out the following induction. Suppose that for we have and for we have . (This holds for as a base case). Then applying the observation above, we find that for . In the case where , we note that , but we know that , so for . In the other two cases we have , so in all cases we can write for .
Now we reapply the observation to find that for we have . Now in all three cases, so we can extend this to say that for . Setting , we know that , so and . Therefore each step of the induction extends downwards the range of integers up to on which takes the value . This terminates when , in which case we find that for , ; then applying the observation one more time we find that for we have .
Therefore is constant on all with , and on all with , and . Finally if , so is given by as described.
∎
We now proceed to the proof of Theorem 4.2.
Proof of Theorem 4.2.
Suppose that is a SWF on with satisfying CC, MIIA, A and N. corresponds to a function where , such that is determined from by equation 4.i, and for all and we have .
Now let and . For with , we can define by , and . Then
|
|
|
|
(4.ii) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Similarly and . In order for to be a weak ordering, we require the multiset to be consistent. Therefore must satisfy the conditions of Lemma 4.3 and must be of the form . This corresponds to defined by , and in turn the Borda rule with constant weight . Since and agree for all and , and since is determined for both SWFs by , we have that and agree for all , so they are the same SWF. Therefore is an unweighted Borda rule, concluding the first part of the theorem.
If P is met, then we know that , so , so and the SWF is the positive Borda rule. However, both the positive rule and the tie rule satisfy PR. What is left is to demonstrate that the negative rule does not satisfy PR. Since is an increasing ballot, we check PRm instead.
Consider the vectors and in . We have , but if is the negative Borda rule then for some we have , and . Therefore conditon PRm doesn’t hold, and so neither does PR. Therefore adding the PR condition rules out the negative case and leaves only the positive Borda rule or the zero-weighted Borda rule under which all results are three way ties.
∎
We use this result to establish the infinite version of the theorem under measurability assumptions.
Definition 4.4 (Measurability for anonymous SWFs).
An anonymous SWF is said to be measurable if is a measurable function from , equipped with the Lebesgue measure, onto equipped with the discrete measure.
Theorem 4.5.
Any measurable SWF on infinite and satisfying CC, MIIA, A and N is an unweighted Borda rule.
We will use the following Lemma, which will also be used in subsequent papers:
Lemma 4.6.
Let with and , and let be a measurable function from to . Suppose that for any with , the multiset is consistent. Then for some real number .
Proof.
First note that setting for all gives that the multiset is consistent, so .
Next we find the following discrete copies of the result sitting within :
Lemma 4.7.
For any there is some such that for all with , we have while .
Proof.
Let . Let , let , and let . Now define by . Since ranges from to , it is always between , so is between and and is defined. But for with , we have . Then since , we are given that is consistent. Applying Lemma 4.3 gives that for some , so , proving the Lemma.
∎
Consequently we find that for any with , ; indeed, with and take . Then and are both less than , so . In other words, restricting to , , and are invariant under positive rational dilations around . Moreover, by setting , we find that .
Now since is measurable we can consider for each ; then so we can take some for which . Therefore there exists some interval on which the density of is more than - that is, .
Now for any , we can find positive rational numbers arbitrarily close to . We restrict ourselves to sufficiently close to guarantee . Now has density more than on , and we choose to be close enough to to ensure that it has density more than on as well (since tends to as approaches ).
Now is the intersection of two sets of density more than on , so it is non-empty and contains some value . We have and . Then the triple sums to zero and falls within , so by assumption we have consistent, so and . But this was true for all . Similarly for all .
Finally, for any , the triple sums to zero and falls within (by the inequalities on and ), so is consistent, and . But so is if and if ; then if and if , completing the Lemma.
∎
We are now ready to proceed to the proof of the measurable case.
Proof of Theorem 4.5.
As in the finite case, suppose that is a SWF on infinite satisfying CC, MIIA, A and N. corresponds to a function where , such that is determined from by equation 4.i, and for all and we have . is measurable if and only if is measurable.
Also as in the finite case, for any with we can set by , and . Then , and . In order for to be a weak ordering, we require the multiset to be consistent. This means that must be consistent.
We define for . Then the conditions for Lemma 4.6 apply to , so , or , and , so is an unweighted Borda rule, as required.
∎
This immediately gives Maskin’s result:
Corollary 4.8 (Maskin).
Any SWF on and satisfying CC, MIIA, A, N and PR is the positive unweighted Borda rule or the tie rule.
Proof.
Lemma 4.1 means that condition PR guarantees that is non-increasing. Hence for all we have . Clearly is either empty or an interval, and the same goes for and ; so is measurable. Thus Theorem 4.5 guarantees that is an unweighted Borda rule. Since is non-increasing, we find that the rule must be the positive unweighted Borda rule or the tie rule, as in the proof of Theorem 4.2.
∎
Finally, without the measurability condition (or the stronger PR condition) we construct pathological counterexamples, including examples satisfying the Pareto condition.
Theorem 4.9.
Assuming the axiom of choice, there exists a strongly non-Borda SWF on infinite satisfying CC, MIIA, A, N and P.
The logic of the construction is to find a partition of into wins, ties and losses such that consistency is satisfied, but using unmeasurable sets to avoid the Borda rule. The proof of Lemma 4.6 demonstrated that these sets would be closed under addition and rational dilatons, so we use Zorn’s lemma to construct such sets.
Proof.
Consider the family of sets satisfying the following conditions:
-
1.
-
2.
If then for all positive rational numbers
-
3.
If then
This family forms a partially ordered set under the order relation of set inclusion. Note that is non-empty because is in . Condition 1 is satisfied by and . Conditions 2 and 3 are satisfied trivially.
Any non-empty chain has an upper bound which is the union over all of . This is clearly a subset of , and it contains and from any of its members so it satisfies condition 1. Now if then for some , and then for all positive rational , so and satisfies condition 2. Finally, if then and and without loss of generality , so and , so , and satisfies condition 3.
Hence by (the non-empty formulation of) Zorn’s Lemma the set contains at least one maximal element, which we call . We will show that .
Suppose instead that some has . Now we construct
|
|
|
(4.iii) |
Firstly, because and if for some , then . Then and , so contradicting our definition of . Hence .
Now clearly condition 1 is inherited from .
Condition 2 is met because if then either in which case , or for positive rational and ; then . Now because either in which case or in which case , and is a positive rational, so .
Finally, condition 3 holds because if then either:
-
•
and so , or
-
•
and for , in which case and , or the same with and reversed, or
-
•
and , so , and , so
So satisfies conditions 1, 2 and 3.
Thus , but is greater than in the partial order of set inclusion, contradicting the fact that is maximal; so in fact there was no such , and it was the case that .
Now we define . We set , for we set , and otherwise we set . Defining from via equation 4.i, we then get a SWF if meets the conditions set out in Lemma 2.22.
Condition 1 in the Lemma is met by definition, because the value of on is defined by . So what is left is to check condition 2.
Consider the election vector , which we will call for brevity. Then
|
|
|
|
(4.iv) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thus , and so on for other indices, so it remains to show that for all non-negative, we have that is consistent.
First, if any , then . Now there are three cases:
-
1.
If then and the multiset is , which is consistent.
-
2.
If and then . Meanwhile , and if then by additivity we have , a contradiction. Thus . Thus the multiset is , which is consistent.
-
3.
If and then . Now since , we have . Then . Thus the multiset is , which is consistent.
Suppose instead that for all . Then or for all . The only two inconsistent possibilities for are and .
Suppose that the multiset is . Then for all . But by additivity, this means that , a contradiction.
Now suppose that the multiset is . Then so for all ; so again by additivity we find that , a contradiction.
So instead we find that is consistent, so is a valid SWF, defined on the Condorcet Cycle domain, and satisfying A, N and MIIA as required. Finally we need to check that satisfies condition P, and that it is strongly non-Borda.
Suppose that is ranked above by all voters. Then . But , so this requires , or defined by . Then . But since , if we had then by additivity we would have , a contradiction; so and we get . Thus , as required by condition P.
On the other hand, if is ranked above by all voters, then for all . This is corresponds to a defined by . Then . Now so by condition 2, and so . Thus , and by the definition of on we get that , as required. Therefore the Pareto condition holds.
Finally, note that is strongly non-Borda. We have seen that and we also know that , because (or else, by additivity, ). Correspondingly, we find that on , we have and . But for an unweighted Borda rule with weight , the difference between the Borda scores of candidates and in these cases are and respectively; and since these have the same sign, must give the same ranking in both cases. The only way that this could happen while agrees with except as a tiebreaker would be if ; but by definition we do not call a SWF weakly Borda with respect to the tie rule. Finally, is not the tie rule since any with has ; so for other than we have .
Now by Lemma 2.25, since must obey condition A, if were weakly Borda with respect to some weighted Borda rule , it would also be weakly Borda with respect to an unweighted Borda rule. This has been ruled out, so in fact is strongly non-Borda.
∎
Note that we cannot hope to find such an without resorting to choice (or some axiom stronger than dependent choice) because the Solovay model \autocitesolovay of set theory has dependent choice, but every set of the real numbers is measurable. On the other hand, Tao \autocitetao has constructed non-measurable sets using the existence of non-principal ultrafilters on , which is not implied by the axiom of dependent choice but is weaker than the full axiom of choice. Whether these non-measurable sets could be controlled to give closure under addition, as we require here, is an interesting question beyond the scope of this paper.