This article is about the voting system criterion. For the mathematical notion of a function that doesn't "bend", see monotonic function. For the concept of population or voter monotonicity, see Participation criterion.
Perversity is often described by social choice theorists as an exceptionally severe kind of electoral pathology.[5][6] Systems that allow for perverse response can create situations where a voter's ballot has a reversed effect on the election, thus treating the well-being of some voters as "less than worthless".[6] Similar arguments have led to constitutional prohibitions on such systems as violating the right to equal and direct suffrage.[7][8] Negative response is often cited as an example of a perverse incentive, as voting rules with perverse response incentivize politicians to take unpopular or extreme positions in an attempt to shed excess votes.
The participation criterion is a closely-related, but different, concept. While positive responsiveness deals with a voter changing their opinion (or vote), participation deals with situations where a voter choosing to cast a ballot has a reversed effect on the election.
^ abArrow, Kenneth J. (2017-12-13). Social Choice and Individual Values. doi:10.12987/9780300186987. ISBN978-0-300-18698-7. Since we are trying to describe social welfare and not some sort of illfare, we must assume that the social welfare function is such that the social ordering responds positively to alterations in individual values, or at least not negatively. Hence, if one alternative social state rises or remains still in the ordering of every individual without any other change in those orderings, we expect that it rises, or at least does not fall, in the social ordering.
^Ornstein, Joseph T.; Norman, Robert Z. (2014-10-01). "Frequency of monotonicity failure under Instant Runoff Voting: estimates based on a spatial model of elections". Public Choice. 161 (1–2): 1–9. doi:10.1007/s11127-013-0118-2. ISSN0048-5829. S2CID30833409.
^Ornstein, Joseph T.; Norman, Robert Z. (2014-10-01). "Frequency of monotonicity failure under Instant Runoff Voting: estimates based on a spatial model of elections". Public Choice. 161 (1–2): 1–9. doi:10.1007/s11127-013-0118-2. ISSN0048-5829. S2CID30833409.
Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).