[
Arrow, K. J. (1963) Social Choice and Individual Values. 2nd ed. Wiley, New York (First edition 1951).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ballester, M. and Haeringer. G. (2011) A characterization of the single-peaked domain. Social Choice and Welfare 36, 305–322.10.1007/s00355-010-0476-3
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bartholdi, J. and Orlin, J. (1991) Single transferable vote resists strategic voting. Social Choice and Welfare 6, 341–354.10.1007/BF00183045
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Black, D. (1948) On the rationale of group decision-making. Journal of Political Economy 56, 23–34.10.1086/256633
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Brandt, F., Geist, C. and Peters, D. (2017) Optimal bounds for the no show paradox via SAT solving. Mathematical Social Sciences 90, 18–27.10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2016.09.003
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Dryzek, J. S. and List, C. (2003) Social choice theory and deliberative democracy: A reconciliation. British Journal of Political Science 33, 1–28.10.1017/S0007123403000012
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Dummett, M. and Farquharson, R. (1961) Stability of voting. Econometrica 29, 33–43.10.2307/1907685
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Felsenthal, D. S. and Nurmi, H. (2017) Monotonicity Failures Affecting Procedures for Electing a Single Candidate. Springer, Cham.10.1007/978-3-319-51061-3
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Felsenthal, D. S. and Nurmi, H. (2019) Voting Procedures Under a Restricted Domain. An Examination of the (In)Vulnerability of 20 Voting Procedures to Five Main Paradoxes. Springer, Cham.10.1007/978-3-030-12627-8
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Fishburn, P. C. and Brams, S. J. (1983) Paradoxes of preferential voting. Mathematics Magazine 56: 207–214.10.1080/0025570X.1983.11977044
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Fishkin, J. S. (1991) Democracy and Deliberation. Yale University Press, New Haven.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Fishkin, J. S. (2009) When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gibbard, A. (1973) Manipulation of voting schemes. Econometrica 41, 587–601.10.2307/1914083
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Holliday, W. H. and Pacuit, E. (2021) Axioms of defeat in democratic elections. Journal of Theoretical Politics 33, 475–524.10.1177/09516298211043236
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kelly, J. S. (1978) Arrow Impossibility Theorems. Academic Press, New York.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
List, C., Luskin, R. C., Fishkin, J. S. and McLean, I. (2013) Deliberation, single-peakedness and the possibility of meaningful democracy: Evidence from deliberative polls. Journal of Politics 75, 80–95.10.1017/S0022381612000886
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Mercier, H. and Landemore H. (2012) Reasoning is for arguing: Understanding the successes and failures of deliberation. Political Psychology 33, 243–258.10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00873.x
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Moulin, H. (1988) Condorcet’s principle implies the no show paradox. Journal of Economic Theory 45, 53–64.10.1016/0022-0531(88)90253-0
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Nurmi, H. (1987) Comparing Voting Systems. D. Reidel, Dordrecht.10.1007/978-94-009-3985-1
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Pérez, J. (2001) The strong no show paradoxes are a common flaw in Condorcet voting correspondences. Social Choice and Welfare 18, 601–616.10.1007/s003550000079
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Rasch, B. E. (2014) On the non-deliberative nature of parliamentary debates. In: T. Raunio, and H. Nurmi, (eds.), The Serious Game of Politics. Festschrift for Matti Wiberg. Finnish Political Science Association, Helsinki, 137–158.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Riker, Wm. H. (1982) Liberalism Against Populism: A Confrontation Between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Satterthwaite, M. (1975) Strategy-proofness and Arrow’s conditions. Journal of Economic Theory 10, 187–217.10.1016/0022-0531(75)90050-2
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Sen, A. K. (1970) Collective Choice and Social Welfare. Holden-Day, San Francisco.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Slinko, A. and White, S. (2008) Non-dictatorial rules are safely manipulable. In: U. Endriss and P. Goldberg (eds), Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Computational Social Choice (COMSOC’08), 403–413.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Smith, J. H. (1973) Aggregation of preferences with variable electorate. Econometrica 41: 1027–1041.10.2307/1914033
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Woodall, D. R. (1996) Monotonicity and single-seat election rules. Voting Matters, 6, 9–14.
]Search in Google Scholar
