ABSTRACT
Sincere voting outcomes may always be determined by constructing the appropriate agenda tree and ‘simulating’ the sincere voting process: that is, given a preference profile, people may determine how each voter, and thus a majority of voters, would vote at the initial node of the agenda, then at the resulting node, and so forth. In parallel manner, sophisticated voting outcomes may always be determined by constructing the appropriate agenda tree and then identifying the sophisticated equivalent at each decision node, starting from final decision nodes and working back up the tree to the initial node. It is commonly appreciated that the position of an alternative in the voting order may affect whether it becomes the voting outcome. This in turn implies that the order in which proposals are made — and accordingly their parliamentary status as original motion, amendment, substitute, etc. — influences the voting outcome.
