S. Berg and D. Lepelley, On probability models in voting theory, Statistica Neerlandica, vol.48, pp.133-146, 1994.

J. C. De-borda, Mémoire sur lesélections au scrutin, p.1781

D. Cervone, W. V. Gehrlein, and W. Zwicker, Which scoring rule maximizes Condorcet efficiency under IAC?, Theory and Decision, vol.58, issue.2, pp.145-185, 2005.

Y. Chevaleyre, J. Lang, N. Maudet, J. Monnot, and L. Xia, New candidates welcome! Possible winners with respect to the addition of new candidates, Mathematical Social Sciences, vol.64, issue.1, pp.74-88, 2012.
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01199286

C. Marquis-de, Essai sur l'application de l'analyseà la probabilité des décisions renduesà la pluralité des voix, 1785.

H. S. Coxeter, The functions of Schläfli and Lobatschefsky, Quarterly Journal of Mathematics, vol.6, pp.13-29, 1935.

M. Diss, V. Merlin, and F. Valognes, On the Condorcet efficiency of approval voting and extended Scoring Rules for Three Alternatives, Studies in Choice and Welfare Springer, 2010.
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00533124

C. L. Dodgson, A method of taking Votes on more than two Issues, 1876.

B. Dutta, M. O. Jackson, and M. Le-breton, Strategic candidacy and voting procedures, Econometrica, vol.69, issue.4, pp.1013-1037, 2001.

D. Felsenthal, Review of paradoxes afflicting procedures for electing a single candidate, Electoral Systems : Paradoxes, Assumptions, and Procedures, 2012.

P. C. Fishburn, Inverted orders for monotone scoring rules, Discrete Applied Mathematics, vol.3, pp.27-36, 1981.

P. C. Fishburn and W. V. Gehrlein, Borda's rule, positional voting and Condorcet's simple majority principle, Public Choice, vol.28, pp.79-88, 1976.

W. V. Gehrlein and P. C. Fishburn, The probability of the paradox of voting: A computable solution, Journal of Economic Theory, vol.13, pp.14-25, 1976.

W. V. Gehrlein and P. C. Fishburn, Robustness of positional scoring over subsets of alternatives, Appl. Math. Optim, vol.6, pp.241-255, 1980.

W. V. Gehrlein and P. C. Fishburn, Scoring rules and majority agreements for large electorates with arbitrary preferences, Mathematical Social Sciences, vol.2, pp.23-33, 1981.

W. V. Gehrlein and P. C. Fishburn, Constant scoring rules for choosing one among many alternatives, Quality and Quantity, vol.15, pp.203-210, 1981.

W. V. Gehrlein, B. Gopinath, J. C. Lagarias, and P. C. Fishburn, Optimal pairs of score vectors for positional scoring rules, Appl. Math. Optim, vol.8, pp.309-324, 1982.

W. V. Gehrlein and D. Lepelley, Voting paradoxes and group coherence, 2010.
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01243452

E. Kamwa, The increasing committee size paradox with a small number of candidates, Economics Bulletin, vol.33, issue.2, pp.967-972, 2013.

E. Kamwa and V. Merlin, Scoring Rules over Subsets of Alternatives : A General Formula to Analyze Consistency in Four-candidate Elections Under the Impartial Culture, 2015.

R. Kellerhals, On the volume of hyperbolic polyedra, Mathematische Annalen, vol.285, pp.541-569, 1989.

J. Lang, N. Maudet, and M. Polukarov, New results on equilibria in strategic candidacy, Computer Science, vol.8146, pp.13-25, 2013.
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01216397

I. Mclean and A. Urken, Classics of social Choice, 1995.

V. Merlin, M. Tataru, and F. Valognes, On the probability that all decision rules select the same winner, Journal of Mathematical Economics, vol.33, pp.183-207, 2000.

V. Merlin and F. Valognes, On the impact of indifferent voters on the likelihood of some voting paradoxes, Mathematical Social Sciences, vol.48, pp.343-361, 2004.
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00069089

J. Milnor, Hyperbolic geometry: the first 150 years, Bull AMS, vol.6, pp.9-24, 1982.

D. W. Mitchell and W. N. Trumbull, Frequency of paradox in a common N-winner voting scheme, Public Choice, vol.73, issue.1, pp.55-69, 1992.

E. J. Nanson, Methods of election, Transactions and Proceedings of Royal Society of Victoria, vol.19, pp.197-240, 1882.

D. G. Saari, The source of some paradoxes from social choice and statistics, Journal of Econ. Theory, vol.41, pp.1-22, 1987.

D. G. Saari, A dictionary for voting paradoxes, Journal of Economic Theory, vol.48, pp.443-475, 1988.

D. G. Saari, The Borda dictionary, Social Choice and Welfare, vol.7, pp.279-317, 1990.

D. G. Saari, Election relations and a partial Ordering for positional voting, Collective Decision-Making: Social Choice and Political Economy, pp.993-110, 1996.

D. G. Saari and V. Merlin, The Copeland method I. Relationships and the dictionary, Economic Theory, vol.8, issue.1, pp.51-76, 1996.

D. G. Saari and M. Tataru, The likelihood of dubious election outcomes, Economic Theory, vol.13, pp.345-363, 1999.

L. Schläfli, Aggregation of preferences with variable electorate, Gesammelte Mathematische Abhandlungen 1. Birkhäuser, Basel. Smith, J, vol.41, pp.1027-1041, 1950.

M. Staring, Two paradoxes of committee elections, Mathematics Magazine, vol.59, issue.3, pp.158-159, 1986.

M. Tataru and V. Merlin, On the relationship of the Condorcet winner and positional voting rules, Mathematical Social Sciences, vol.34, pp.81-90, 1997.

T. N. Tideman, Independence of clones as a criterion for voting Rules, Social Choice and Welfare, vol.4, pp.185-206, 1987.

J. Van-newenhizen, The Borda method is most likely to respect the Condorcet principle, Economic Theory, vol.2, pp.69-83, 1992.

H. P. Young, Condorcet's theory of voting, American Political Science Review, vol.82, pp.1231-1244, 1988.