Representative democracy as social choice
In: Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare
AbstractSocial Choice traditionally employs the preferences of voters or agents as primitives. However, in most situations of constitutional decision-making the beliefs of the members of the electorate determine their secondary preferences or choices. Key choices in US political history, such as the ratification of the Constitution in 1787 and the election of Lincoln in 1860, were conditioned by changing beliefs as regards the truth of propositions about the political universe. Preference-based models of election tend to conclude that candidates, or parties, converge to a vote-maximizing policy position at the "electoral center". Empirical work suggests that such a conclusion is invalid. This chapter argues, on the contrary, that parties or candidates adopt positions that optimize, in a Nash equilibrium sense, with respect to both their beliefs over electoral response, and their beliefs over appropriate policy choices. The analysis indicates that political choices will be different depending on whether plurality ("first past the post") or proportionality is used as the method of electoral representation.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
This chapter was published in:
This item is provided by Elsevier in its series Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare with number 1-09.
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/bookseriesdescription.cws_home/BS_HE/description
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- I0 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - General
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Pierre-Guillaume Méon, 2006.
"Majority voting with stochastic preferences: the whims of a committee are smaller than the whims of its members,"
DULBEA Working Papers
06-05.RS, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
- Pierre-Guillaume Méon, 2006. "Majority voting with stochastic preferences: The whims of a committee are smaller than the whims of its members," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 207-216, September.
- Pierre-Guillaume Méon, 2006. "Majority voting with stochastic preferences: the whims of a committee are smaller than the whims of its members," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/8364, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
- Pierre-Guillaume Méon, 2004. "Majority voting with stochastic preferences : The whims of a committee are smaller than the whims of its members," Working Papers of LaRGE Research Center 2004-07, Laboratoire de Recherche en Gestion et Economie (LaRGE), Université de Strasbourg (France).
- Kirstein, Roland, 2006.
"The Condorcet Jury-Theorem with Two Independent Error-Probabilities,"
CSLE Discussion Paper Series
2006-03, Saarland University, CSLE - Center for the Study of Law and Economics.
- Roland Kirstein, . "The Condorcet Jury-Theorem with Two Independent Error-Probabilities," German Working Papers in Law and Economics 2006-1-1154, Berkeley Electronic Press.
- Dimitrios Xefteris, 2011. "The political economy of constitutional restraints," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 221-237, September.
- Norman Schofield & Christopher Claassen & Ugur Ozdemir & Alexei Zakharov, 2011. "Estimating the effects of activists in two-party and multi-party systems: comparing the United States and Israel," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 483-518, April.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wendy Shamier).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.