Three Empirical Analyses of Voting

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorSong, Chang Geunen
dc.contributor.committeechairTideman, Nicolausen
dc.contributor.committeememberBahel, Eric A.en
dc.contributor.committeememberPlassman, Florenzen
dc.contributor.committeememberAshley, Richard A.en
dc.contributor.departmentEconomicsen
dc.date.accessioned2022-06-18T08:00:36Zen
dc.date.available2022-06-18T08:00:36Zen
dc.date.issued2022-06-17en
dc.description.abstractTo evaluate voting rules, it would be good to know what universe election outcomes are drawn from. Election theorists have postulated that elections might be drawn from various stochastic preference models, including the IC and IAC conditions, but these models induce empirically contradicted predictions. We use two distinct data sets, FairVote and German Politbarometer survey. Based on the data information, we suggest approaches that differ from those probabilistic models to better approximate the actual data in Chapter 3 and 4. Chapter 5 applies the spatial model for four-candidate in a three-dimensional setting. We also offer a significant gap between the actual and simulated data under the IAC conditions by comparing their statistical characteristics.en
dc.description.abstractgeneralThrough the 1884 Third Reform Act, the plurality rule (or first-past-the-post system) runs to elect parliament members for the first time. More than a hundred years passed after the Act, and election theorists have suggested various alternatives, the plurality rule is the second most used rule worldwide for national elections for now. One main reason is that researchers do not reach an agreement on the best alternative rule. Theorists have evaluated different voting rules under probabilistic assumptions, but real-world examples contradict the predictions of these models. In this dissertation, we suggest different approaches provide a better approximation to the actual data. In Chapter 3 and 4, we go backward: analyze how voters of each preference order are distributed in real data first, then set a model for estimating the frequency of paradox. In chapter 5, we extend an existing model with higher dimensionality. Then using the model, we offer empirical evidence showing the gap between the actual and simulated data under a popular probabilistic model.en
dc.description.degreeDoctor of Philosophyen
dc.format.mediumETDen
dc.identifier.othervt_gsexam:34558en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10919/110839en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherVirginia Techen
dc.rightsCreative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 Internationalen
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/en
dc.subjectCondorcet paradoxen
dc.subjectVoting paradoxen
dc.subjectSocial choiceen
dc.subjectAlternative voteen
dc.subjectCollective decision makingen
dc.subjectInstant-Runoff Votingen
dc.subjectElectionen
dc.subjectAgent-based modelingen
dc.titleThree Empirical Analyses of Votingen
dc.typeDissertationen
thesis.degree.grantorVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State Universityen
thesis.degree.leveldoctoralen
thesis.degree.nameDoctor of Philosophyen

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Song_C_D_2022.pdf
Size:
2.95 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download

Collections

Doctoral Dissertations