M. Balinski and R. Laraki, Majority Judgment: Measuring, Ranking, and Electing, 2010.
DOI : 10.7551/mitpress/9780262015134.001.0001

D. Black, The theory of committees and elections, 1958.
DOI : 10.1007/978-94-009-4225-7

J. R. Chamberlin, J. L. Cohen, and C. H. Coombs, Social Choice Observed: Five Presidential Elections of the American Psychological Association, The Journal of Politics, vol.46, issue.2, pp.479-502, 1984.
DOI : 10.2307/2130971

F. Durand, F. Mathieu, and L. Noirie, Manipulability of voting systems, 2012.
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00692096

F. Durand, F. Mathieu, and L. Noirie, Making most voting systems meet the condorcet criterion reduces their ma- nipulability

P. Favardin and D. Lepelley, Some Further Results on the Manipulability of Social Choice Rules, Social Choice and Welfare, vol.16, issue.3, pp.485-509, 2006.
DOI : 10.1007/s00355-006-0106-2
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00068839

P. Favardin, D. Lepelley, and J. Serais, Borda rule, Copeland method and strategic manipulation, Review of Economic Design, vol.7, issue.2, pp.213-228, 2002.
DOI : 10.1007/s100580200073
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00069522

A. Gibbard, Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result, Econometrica, vol.41, issue.4, pp.587-601, 1973.
DOI : 10.2307/1914083

J. Green-armytage, Four condorcet-hare hybrid methods for single-winner elections. Voting matters, pp.1-14, 2011.

J. Green-armytage, Strategic voting and nomination. Social Choice and Welfare, pp.111-138, 2014.
DOI : 10.1007/s00355-013-0725-3

J. Green-armytage, N. Tideman, and R. Cosman, Statistical evaluation of voting rules, Social Choice and Welfare, vol.21, issue.954, 2014.
DOI : 10.1007/s00355-015-0909-0

D. Lepelley and B. Mbih, The proportion of coalitionally unstable situations under the plurality rule, Economics Letters, vol.24, issue.4, pp.311-315, 1987.
DOI : 10.1016/0165-1765(87)90062-0

D. Lepelley and B. Mbih, The vulnerability of four social choice functions to coalitional manipulation of preferences, Social Choice and Welfare, vol.11, issue.3, pp.253-265, 1994.
DOI : 10.1007/BF00193810

D. Lepelley and F. Valognes, On the Kim and Roush voting procedure. Group Decision and Negotiation, pp.109-123, 1999.

D. Lepelley and F. Valognes, Voting rules, manipulability and social homogeneity, Public Choice, vol.116, issue.1/2, pp.165-184, 2003.
DOI : 10.1023/A:1024221816507
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00069239

D. Lepelley, A. Louichi, and H. Smaoui, On Ehrhart polynomials and probability calculations in voting theory, Social Choice and Welfare, vol.25, issue.6, pp.363-383, 2008.
DOI : 10.1007/s00355-007-0236-1
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01245310

H. Moulin, La Stratégie du vote. Cahiers du CEREMADE, 1978.

G. Pritchard and M. Wilson, Exact results on manipulability of positional voting rules, Social Choice and Welfare, vol.16, issue.4, pp.487-513, 2007.
DOI : 10.1007/s00355-007-0216-5

G. Donald and . Saari, Susceptibility to manipulation, Public Choice, vol.64, issue.1, pp.21-41, 1990.

A. Mark and . Satterthwaite, Strategy-proofness and arrow's conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions, Journal of Economic Theory, vol.10, issue.2, pp.187-217, 1975.

A. Slinko, How large should a coalition be to manipulate an election?, Mathematical Social Sciences, vol.47, issue.3, pp.289-293, 2004.
DOI : 10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2003.09.007

D. A. Smith, Manipulability measures of common social choice functions, Social Choice and Welfare, vol.16, issue.4, pp.639-661, 1999.
DOI : 10.1007/s003550050166

N. Tideman, Collective Decisions And Voting: The Potential for Public Choice