 $u_i$ consistent with $P_i$ ($u_i(a)>u_i(b)$ whenever $a\succ_i b$), and for every $P_i'$, the following is true: $$\sum_{x\in F(P_iP_{-i})}p_i(P_iP_{-i},x,F(P_iP_{-i}))u_i(x)\geq
    \sum_{x\in F(P_i'P_{-i})}p_i(P_iP_{-i},x,F(P_i'P_{-i}))u_i(x).$$

For $|A|\geq 3$, $F$ has a weak dictator.

The notion of manipulation used by @Duggan1992 is obviously more general than that of @Taylor2002, and one is thus tempted to conclude that the original theorem is weaker than Taylor’s reformulation.[^1]

However, this would be erroneous as the theorems, strictly speaking, are incomparable. Taylor’s theorem concerns a social choice correspondence $F$, whereas @Duggan1992’s theorem applies to $F$ *together* with a set of probability functions, $p_i$. It is entirely plausible that one could find two sets of probability functions such that $F$ and $p_1,\dots,p_n$ satisfy the hypotheses of the Duggan-Schwartz theorem while $F$ and $p_1',\dots,p_n'$ do not. However, $F$ is unchanged – it either has a weak dictator, or it does not.

To more properly compare the two theorems, then, we need to take an existential projection over the original Duggan-Schwartz theorem.

\[thm:DSexist\] Let $F$ be a social choice correspondence that is onto with respect to singletons. That is, for every $a\in A$ there exists a $P$ such that $F(P)={{ \{\, a \,\} }}$.

Suppose there exist probability functions $p_i:{\mathcal{P}}(V,A)\times A\times 2^A{\rightarrow}[0,1]$ such that $\sum_{x\in X}p_i(P,x,X)=1$ and $p_i(P,a,X)>0$ whenever $a={\textnormal{best}}(P_i
$ u_i$ consistent with $ P_i$ ($ u_i(a)>u_i(b)$ whenever $ a\succ_i b$), and for every $ P_i'$, the following is true: $ $ \sum_{x\in F(P_iP_{-i})}p_i(P_iP_{-i},x, F(P_iP_{-i}))u_i(x)\geq 
     \sum_{x\in F(P_i'P_{-i})}p_i(P_iP_{-i},x, F(P_i'P_{-i}))u_i(x).$$ 

 For $ |A|\geq 3 $, $ F$ has a fallible authoritarian. 

 The notion of manipulation use by @Duggan1992 is obviously more cosmopolitan than that of @Taylor2002, and one is thus tempted to conclude that the original theorem is weak than Taylor ’s reformulation.[^1 ] 

 However, this would be erroneous as the theorems, strictly talk, are incomparable. Taylor ’s theorem concerns a social choice parallelism $ F$, whereas @Duggan1992 ’s theorem applies to $ F$ * together * with a bent of probability routine, $ p_i$. It is entirely plausible that one could find two sets of probability functions such that $ F$ and $ p_1,\dots, p_n$ satisfy the hypothesis of the Duggan - Schwartz theorem while $ F$ and $ p_1',\dots, p_n'$ do not. However, $ F$ is unchanged – it either has a decrepit dictator, or it does not. 

 To more properly compare the two theorems, then, we necessitate to take an existential projection over the original Duggan - Schwartz theorem. 

 \[thm: DSexist\ ] Let $ F$ be a social choice symmetry that is onto with respect to singletons. That is, for every $ a\in A$ there exists a $ P$ such that $ F(P)= { { \{\, a \,\ } } } $. 

 Suppose there exist probability functions $ p_i:{\mathcal{P}}(V, A)\times A\times 2^A{\rightarrow}[0,1]$ such that $ \sum_{x\in X}p_i(P, x, X)=1 $ and $ p_i(P, a, X)>0 $ whenever $ a={\textnormal{best}}(P_i
 $u_i$ consistent with $P_i$ ($u_i(a)>u_l(b)$ whenever $a\suce_u b$), anv for ebery $P_i'$, ghe following is true: $$\sum_{x\in F(P_iP_{-i})}p_u(P_iP_{-i},x,F(P_iP_{-i}))u_i(x)\geq
    \sjm_{x\in F(P_i'I_{-i})}p_i(P_iP_{-i},x,D(P_i'P_{-m}))u_i(x).$$

For $|A|\geq 3$, $F$ izs a weak dicfwtor.

Chx notion of manlpulation uved by @Duggan1992 hs oyviously more general than that of @Twylor2002, amd one is thus tgmptec to donclude that the original theorem is weaner than Taylpr’s reformulation.[^1]

However, tjis aould be erroneous as the theiremf, strictly spdaking, are incomparablg. Taylor’s theorem concerns a sockal ckoice correwpindftce $F$, wherees @Dugdan1992’s theorem applies to $F$ *tpgether* with a sev of probability functionv, $p_i$. It is entireli plausibla chat one could find tqo sets of [robxvilkty fnncfions duci that $F$ ans $p_1,\dots,p_n$ sqtisfy the hypothests jd the Duggan-Sdhwarts eheorem while $F$ and $p_1',\dots,p_n'$ do not. Howener, $R$ is unchanged – it eithwr has a weak dictatot, or it doqs not.

To more properly compare the two theorems, tven, wx veeb to txje an existential projection over the original Qhgbak-Schwartz theorei.

\[thm:DSexist\] Lft $S$ be a social choicz ckrrespondence that is ontj wity respect to xingletons. That is, for evert $a\in A$ therv exusts a $P$ such that $F(P)={{ \{\, a \,\} }}$.

Sup'ose tnere rxist probability functnons $p_j:{\mathcal{P}}(V,A)\himes A\tijds 2^A{\rightarrow}[0,1]$ sjch tvat $\sum_{x\in X}p_i(P,x,X)=1$ and $p_i(P,a,V)>0$ whenevec $a={\tertnormal{cest}}(K_i
$u_i$ consistent with $P_i$ ($u_i(a)>u_i(b)$ whenever $a\succ_i for $P_i'$, the is true: $$\sum_{x\in 3$, has a weak The notion of used by @Duggan1992 is obviously more than that of @Taylor2002, and one is thus tempted to conclude that the theorem is weaker than Taylor’s reformulation.[^1] However, this would be erroneous as the strictly are Taylor’s concerns a social choice correspondence $F$, whereas @Duggan1992’s theorem applies to $F$ *together* with a set probability functions, $p_i$. It is entirely plausible that could find two sets probability functions such that $F$ $p_1,\dots,p_n$ the hypotheses the theorem $F$ and $p_1',\dots,p_n'$ not. However, $F$ is unchanged – it either has a weak dictator, or it does not. To properly compare theorems, then, need take existential projection over Duggan-Schwartz theorem. \[thm:DSexist\] Let $F$ be correspondence that is onto with respect to singletons. is, for $a\in A$ there exists a $P$ that $F(P)={{ \{\, a \,\} }}$. Suppose there probability functions $p_i:{\mathcal{P}}(V,A)\times A\times 2^A{\rightarrow}[0,1]$ such that $\sum_{x\in X}p_i(P,x,X)=1$ and $p_i(P,a,X)>0$ whenever $a={\textnormal{best}}(P_i
 $u_i$ consistent with $P_i$ ($u_i(a)>u_i(b)$ wHenever $a\suCc_i b$), aNd fOr eVeRy $P_i'$, The fOllowing is true: $$\SUm_{x\iN F(P_iP_{-i})}p_i(P_iP_{-i},x,F(P_iP_{-i}))u_i(x)\gEq
    \sum_{X\iN f(P_i'P_{-I})}P_i(p_iP_{-i},x,f(P_i'P_{-i}))u_i(X).$$

foR $|a|\Geq 3$, $f$ hAs A weAk DIcTator.

the Notion oF manipulatIon UsEd by @Duggan1992 is OBvIously more GenEral than that Of @TAylor2002, aNd One IS thus TemPted tO conclUDe that The originAl THeorem IS weaker THAn taylOr’s reformulation.[^1]

HOWeVEr, this would be eRroneoUs AS tHE TheOreMs, strictly SpEakinG, Are incoMPaRABLe. TAYlor’s theorem cOncerns a socIAl cHoice cOrResPOndencE $F$, wheReAS @DuGgan1992’s theoreM appLies to $F$ *toGether* WIth a set OF probabIlity fUncTioNs, $p_i$. iT iS eNtiReLY plAUsIblE ThaT one coulD fInD two sEts oF PROBabiLitY funCtionS such that $F$ and $P_1,\doTs,p_n$ SAtiSfy thE hypoThesEs Of the duggan-schwaRtZ theorem while $F$ aNd $p_1',\dOts,p_n'$ do noT. HoWeVer, $f$ iS unchANged – it EitHer Has a weaK dictatOR, or It DOES nOt.

To more properly coMpARE tHe two theOrems, tHEn, We NEed to takE aN exIsteNTIal prOjecTIoN over the OriginAL DUgGan-SchwArTz theoReM.

\[thM:DSExist\] lEt $F$ bE a sociAl choice CorreSPondence that is ONto with respecT To SINgLEtonS. ThAt is, for everY $a\in a$ TherE exiSTs A $P$ sUCh thaT $F(P)={{ \{\, a \,\} }}$.

SUpPOsE There exist probabiliTy FunctiOns $p_i:{\Mathcal{P}}(V,A)\timEs A\times 2^A{\rIGHTarrow}[0,1]$ suCh thAT $\sUM_{x\in X}p_i(P,x,X)=1$ and $p_I(P,a,X)>0$ wHenever $a={\teXTnormal{bEst}}(P_i
 $u_i$ consistent with $P_ i$ ($u_i(a )>u_i (b) $ w he neve r $a \succ_i b$), a n d fo r every $P_i'$, the fo llowi ng is t r ue : $$\ sum_{x\ i nF ( P_i P_ {- i}) }p _ i( P_iP_ {-i },x,F(P _iP_{-i})) u_i (x )\geq
    \s u m_ {x\in F(P_ i'P _{-i})}p_i(P _iP _{-i}, x, F(P _ i'P_{ -i} ))u_i (x).$$ 
For $ |A|\geq 3 $, $F$ ha s  a weak d ic tato r.

The notion of ma n ipulation used  by @D ug g an 1 9 92isobviouslymo re ge n eral th a nt h a t o f  @Taylor2002,  and one is thu s temp te d t o  concl ude t ha t  th e originaltheo rem is we aker t h an Tayl o r’s ref ormula tio n.[ ^1]Ho we ver ,t his wo uld beerroneou sas  thetheo r e m s , st ric tlyspeak ing, are inco mpa rabl e . T aylor ’s th eore mconce rns asocia lchoice correspo nden ce $F$, w her ea s @ Du ggan1 9 92’s t heo rem  applie s to $F $  *t og e t h er * with a set of pr ob a b il ity func tions, $p _i $ . It isen tir elyp l ausib le t h at  one cou ld fin d  t wo  sets o fprobab il ity  fu nctio n s su ch tha t $F$ an d $p_ 1 ,\dots,p_n$ sa t isfy the hypo t he s e so f th e D uggan-Schwa rtzt heor em w h il e $ F $ and  $p_1 ', \ do t s,p_n'$ do not. How ev er, $F $ isunchanged – i t either h a s a weak d icta t or ,  or it does no t.

T o more pro p erly com parethe twotheorems, t hen, wenee d t o t ake a nexistential p r o ject io n overthe  origin alDug gan -Sc hw artz theo rem.

\[ th m: DS ex ist \] Le t  $F$ beasoc ia l c hoice corres ponde nceth at isonto wi t hr e spec tto  sin gle to ns. T hati s,for eve ry $a\inA$t here  e xi sts a $ P$ such that$F (P)={{ \{\ ,a \ ,\} }} $ . 

Suppos e there exist probabili t y funct ion s $p_ i:{\ mathcal{P }}( V,A)\t ime s  A\tim es 2^A {\rig ht arr o w }[0,1 ] $  s uch  t hat $\sum_ { x \in  X}p_ i( P,x, X)=1$ a nd $p_i(P,a,X)>0$w hen ever $a={\tex tno rmal { b es t}} ( P_ i 
 $u_i$_consistent with_$P_i$ ($u_i(a)>u_i(b)$ whenever $a\succ_i_b$), and_for_every $P_i'$,_the_following is true:_$$\sum_{x\in F(P_iP_{-i})}p_i(P_iP_{-i},x,F(P_iP_{-i}))u_i(x)\geq
 _  \sum_{x\in F(P_i'P_{-i})}p_i(P_iP_{-i},x,F(P_i'P_{-i}))u_i(x).$$

For_$|A|\geq 3$, $F$_has_a weak dictator.

The notion of manipulation used by @Duggan1992 is obviously more general than_that_of @Taylor2002,_and_one_is thus tempted to conclude_that the original theorem is_weaker than_Taylor’s reformulation.[^1]

However, this would be erroneous as the_theorems,_strictly speaking, are_incomparable. Taylor’s theorem concerns a social choice correspondence $F$,_whereas @Duggan1992’s theorem applies to $F$_*together* with a_set_of_probability functions, $p_i$. It_is entirely plausible that one could_find two sets of probability functions_such that $F$ and $p_1,\dots,p_n$ satisfy the_hypotheses of the Duggan-Schwartz theorem while_$F$ and $p_1',\dots,p_n'$ do not._However, $F$_is unchanged – it either_has a weak_dictator, or_it does not.

To_more properly compare the two theorems,_then, we need_to take an existential projection over_the_original Duggan-Schwartz theorem.

\[thm:DSexist\]_Let_$F$_be a_social choice correspondence_that_is onto_with_respect to singletons. That is, for_every_$a\in A$ there exists a $P$ such_that $F(P)={{ \{\, a_\,\}_}}$.

Suppose there exist probability_functions $p_i:{\mathcal{P}}(V,A)\times A\times 2^A{\rightarrow}[0,1]$ such_that $\sum_{x\in X}p_i(P,x,X)=1$ and $p_i(P,a,X)>0$ whenever_$a={\textnormal{best}}(P_i