Armstrong, T.Arrow's theorem with restricted coalition algebras. Journal of Mathematical Economics 7 (1980), 55–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Arrow, K.A difficulty in the concept of social welfare. The Journal of Political Economy 58 (1950), 328–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Arrow, K. Social choice and individual values (2nd ed.). Yale University Press: New Haven, 1963

Arrow, K. and A. Sen and K. Suzumura (Eds.), Handbook of social choice and welfare, vol. I, North-Holland, New York, 2002

Austen-Smith, D. and J. Banks, Positive political theory I: collective preferences. University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, 2000

Barberá, S.Manipulation of social choice mechanisms that do not leave ‘too much’ to chance. Econometrica 45 (1977a), 1573–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barberá, S.Manipulation of social decision functions. Journal of Economic Theory 15 (1977b), 266–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barberá, S.Pivotal voters. A new proof of Arrow's theorem. Economic Letters 6 (1980), 13–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barberá, S.Strategy-proofness and pivotal voters: a direct proof of the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem. International Economic Review 24 (1983), 413–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barberá, S. and Dutta, B. and Sen, Arunava, Strategy-proof set valued social choice functions. Journal of Economic Theory 101 (2001), 374–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barberá, S., Sonnenschein, H., and Zhou, L., Voting by committees. Econometrica 59 (1991), 595–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bartholdi, J. and Orlin, J., Single-transferable vote resists strategic voting. Social Choice and Welfare 8 (1991), 341–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Batteau, P, Blin, J., and Monjardet, B., Stability of aggregation procedures, ultrafilters, and simple games. Econometrica 49 (1981), 527–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beja, A.Arrow and Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem re-visited. Extended domains and shorter proofs. Mathematical Social Sciences 25 (1993), 281–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bell, J. and A. Slomson, Models and ultraproducts: An Introduction. North Holland: Amsterdam-London, 1969

Benoit, J.Strategic manipulation in voting games when lotteries and ties are permitted. Journal of Economic Theory 102 (2002), 421–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Benoit, J.The Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem: a simple proof. Economic Letters 69 (2000), 319–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Black, D. Theory of committees and elections. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1958

Blau, J.Social choice functions and simple games. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 63 (1957), 243–4Google Scholar

Blau, J.A direct proof of Arrow's theorem. Econometrica 40 (1972), 61–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blau, J. and Deb, R., Social decision functions and the veto. Econometrica 45 (1977), 471–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brams, S. and P. Fishburn, Approval voting. Birkhäuser Boston, Cambridge, MA, 1983

Brams, S. and P. Fishburn, Voting procedures. In the Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare. Arrow, Sen, and Suzumura, eds. (2002), 175–236

Burani, N. and W. Zwicker, Coalition formation games with separable preferences (preprint). Department of Mathematics, Union College (2000)

Campbell, D. Equity, efficiency, and social choice. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1992

Campbell, D. and Kelly, J.. A trade-off result for preference revelation. Journal of Mathematical Economics 34 (2000), 129–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Campbell, D. and Kelly, J.. A leximin characterization of strategy-proof non-resolute social choice procedures. Economic Theory 20 (2002), 809–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ching, S. and Zhou, L., Multi-valued strategy-proof social choice rules. Social Choice and Welfare 19 (2002), 569–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar

COMAP [Consortium for Mathematics and Its Applications] For all practical purposes: Introduction to contemporary mathematics (6th ed.) W. H. Freeman: New York, 2003

Comfort, W. and S. Negrepontis, The theory of ultrafilters. Springer-Verlag: New York, 1974

Condorcet, M. Essai sur l'application de l' analyse ‘a la probabiliti'e des d'ecisions rendues ‘a la pluralit'e des voix. De L'Imprimerie royale, Paris, (1785)

deFinetti, B.La pr'evision ses lois logiques, ses sources subjectives. Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré 7 (1937), 1–68Google Scholar

Denicolo, V.Independent social choice functions are dictatorial. Economics Letters 19 (1985), 9–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Denicolo, V.Fixed agenda social choice theory: correspondence and impossibility theorems for social choice correspondences and social decision functions. Journal of Economic Theory 59 (1993), 324–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Duggan, J.A geometric proof of Gibbard's random dictator theorem. Economic Theory 7 (1996), 365–9Google Scholar

Duggan, J. and T. Schwartz, Strategic manipulability is inescapable: Gibbard-Satterthwaite without resoluteness (preprint). Department of Economics, University of Rochester, (1993)

Duggan, J. and Schwartz, T., Strategic manipulability without resoluteness or shared beliefs: Gibbard-Satterthwaite generalized. Social Choice and Welfare 17 (2000), 85–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Feldman, A.Non-manipulable multi-valued social decision functions. Public Choice 34 (1979a), 177–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Feldman, A.Manipulation and the Pareto rule. Journal of Economic Theory 21 (1979b), 473–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Feldman, A.Manipulating voting procedures. Economic Inquiry 17 (1979c), 452–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Feldman, A.Strongly nonmanipulable multi-valued collective choice rules. Public Choice 35 (1980a), 503–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Feldman, A. Welfare economics and social choice theory. Kluwer: Nijhoff, 1980b

Felsenthal, D. and M. Machover, The measurement of voting power: theory and practice, problems and paradoxes. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 1998CrossRef

Felsenthal, D. and Machover, M., After two centuries, should Condorcet's voting procedure be implemented?Behavorial Sciences 37 (1992), 250–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fishburn, P.Arrow's impossibility theorem: concise proof and infinite voters. Journal of Economic Theory 2 (1970), 103–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fishburn, P. The theory of social choice. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, 1973

Fishburn, P.The axioms of subjective probability. Statist. Sci. 1(1986), 335–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gärdenfors, P.Manipulation of social choice functions. J. Econom. Theory 13 (1976), 217–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gärdenfors, P.A concise proof of theorem on manipulation of social choice functions. Public Choice 32 (1977), 137–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gärdenfors, P. On definitions of manipulation of social choice functions. Aggregation and Revelation of Preferences, edited by Jean-Jacques Laffont. North Holland, Amsterdam, 1979

Geanakoplos. Three brief proofs of Arrow's impossibility theorem. Cowles Discussion Paper 1123R, 1996

Gibbard, A.Manipulation of voting schemes: a general result. Econometrica 41 (1973), 587–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gibbard, A.Manipulation of schemes that mix voting with chance. Econometrica 45 (1977) 665–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gibbard, A.Straightforwardness of game forms with lotteries as outcomes. Econometrica 46 (1978), 595–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Guilbaud, G.Les théories de l'intérêt général et le problème logique de lagrégation. Economie Appliquée 5 (1952), 501–84Google Scholar

Hansson, B.Group preferences. Econometrica 37 (1969), 50–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kelly, J.Strategy-proofness and social choice functions without single-valuedness. Econometrica 45 (1977), 439–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kelly, J. Arrow impossibility theorems. Academic Press: New York, 1978

Kelly, J. Social choice theory: an introduction. Springer-Verlag: New York, 1987

Kelly, J.Social choice bibliography. Social Choice and Welfare 8 (1991), 97–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kirman, A. and Sondermann, D., Arrow's theorem, many agents and invisible dictators. Journal of Economic Theory 5, (1972), 267–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lauwers, L. and Liedekerke, L.. Ultraproducts and aggregation. Journal of Mathematical Economics 24 (1995), 217–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar

MacIntyre, I. and Pattanaik, P., Strategic voting under minimally binary group decision functions. Journal of Economic Theory 25 (1981), 338–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Makinson, D.Combinatorial versus decision-theoretic components of impossibility theorems. Theory and Decision 40 (1996), 181–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar

May, K.A set of independent, necessary and sufficient conditions for simple majority decision. Econometrica 20 (1952), 680–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McLean, I. and A. Urken (ed. and transl.), Classics of social choice. Michigan University Press: Ann Arbor, MI, 1993

Merlin, V. and Saari, D., A geometric examination of the Kemeny rule. Social Choice and Welfare 17 (2000), 403–38Google Scholar

Mihara, H.Coalitionally strategyproof functions depend only on the most-preferred alternative. Social Choice and Welfare 17 (2000), 393–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mihara, H.Existence of a coalitionally strategyproof social choice function: A constructive proof. Social Choice and Welfare 18 (2001), 543–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mill, J. Considerations on representative government. Harper and Brothers: New York, 1862

Monjardet, B.Une autre prevue du théorème d'Arrow. R.A.I.R.O. 12 (1978), 291–6Google Scholar

Monjardet, B. Introduction to social choice theory: The Arrow and Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem. Cahiers MSE: CERMSEM. Université Paris 1, (1999)

Monjardet, B.Social choice and the “Centre de Mathématique Sociale”: Some historical notes. Social Choice and Welfare (to appear in 2005)

Moulin, H.The proportional veto principle. Rev. Econ. Stud. 48 (1981), 407–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moulin, H. The strategy of social choice. North-Holland: New York, 1983

Moulin, H.Fairness and strategy in voting. Proceedings of Symposia in Applied Mathematics 33 (1985), 109–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moulin, H. Fair division and collective welfare. The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 2003

Muller, E. and Satterthwaite, M.. The equivalence of strong positive association and strategy proofness. Journal of Economic Theory 14 (1977), 412–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nandeibaum, S.An alternative proof of Gibbard's random dictatorship result. Social Choice and Welfare 15 (1998), 509–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nurmi, H. Comparing voting systems. D. Reidel Publishing Company: Dordrecht, Holland, 1987

Pazner, E. and Wesley, E,, Stability properties of social choices in infinitely large societies. Journal of Economic Theory 14 (1977), 252–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pazner, E. and Wesley, E., Cheatproofness of the plurality rule in large societies. Review of Economic Studies 45 (1978), 85–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ramamurthy, K. Coherent structures and simple games. Kluwer: Dordrecht, Netherlands, 1990

Riker, W. Liberalism against populism: a confrontation between the theory of democracy and the theory of social choice. W. H. Freeman: San Francisco, 1982

Riker, W. The art of political manipulation. Yale University Press: New Haven and London, 1986

Saari, D. The geometry of voting. Springer-Verlag: New York, 1994

Saari, D. Basic geometry of voting. Springer-Verlag: New York, 1995

Saari, D. Choatic elections: a mathematician looks at voting. The American Mathematical Society, 2001

Satterthwaite, M.Strategy-proofness and Arrow's conditions: existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions. Journal of Economic Theory 10 (1975), 187–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Savage, L. The foundations of statistics. Wiley: New York, 1954

Schmeidler, D. and H. Sonnenschein, Two proofs of the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem on the possibility of a strategy-proof social choice function, in Decision Theory and Social Ethics Issues in Social Choice. H. Gottinger and W. Leinfellner, editors. Reidel: Dordrecht (1978), 227–34

Schofield, N. Social choice and democracy. Springer Verlag: Berlin, 1985

Sen, A.A possibility theorem on majority decisions. Econometrica 34 (1966), 491–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sen, A. Collective choice and social welfare. Holden Day: San Francisco, 1970

Sen, A.Social choice theory: a re-examination. Econometrica 45 (1977), 53–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sen, A. Choice, welfare, and measurement. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1982

Sen, Arunava, Another direct proof of the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem. Economic Letters 70 (2001), 381–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shepsle, K. and M. Bonchek, Analyzing politics: rationality, behavior, and institutions. Norton: New York and London, 1997

Smith, D.Manipulability measures of common social choice functions. Social Choice and Welfare 16 (1999), 639–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Straffin, P. Topics in the theory of voting. Birkhauser: Boston, 1980

Tanaka, Y. An alternative direct proof of Gibbard's random dictatorship theorem, preprint, 2004

Taylor, A. Mathematics and politics: strategy, voting, power, and proof. Springer-Verlag: New York, 1995CrossRef

Taylor, A. 2002. The manipulability of voting systems. The American Mathematical Monthly 109, 321–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Taylor, A. and W. Zwicker, Simple games: desirability relations, trading, and pseudoweightings. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, 1999

Neumann, J.Zur Theorie der Gesellschaftsspiele. Mathematische Annalen 100 (1928), 295–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar

von Neumann, J. and O. Morgenstern, Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, 1944

Wilson, R.Social choice theory without the Pareto principle. Journal of Economic Theory 3 (1972), 478–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Young, H P.Social choice scoring functions. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics 28 (1975), 824–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Young, H. P. and Levenglick, A.. A consistent extension of Condorcet's election principle. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics 35 (1978), 285–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar