Election inversions, coalitions and proportional representation: Examples from Danish elections
AbstractWhen collective choices are made in more than one round and with dif¬ferent groups of decision-makers, so-called election inversions may take place, where each group have different majority outcomes. We identify two ver¬sions of such compound majority paradoxes specifically, but not ex¬clu¬si¬ve¬ly, relevant for systems of proportional representation with governing coalitions: The “Threshold Paradox” and the “Federal Paradox”. The empirical relevance of the two paradoxes is illustrated with examples from three Danish elections (1971, 1990, 2011), where a majority of the voters voted for one bloc of parties but where a majority of the seats fell to another.
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.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 35302.
Date of creation: Dec 2011
Date of revision:
Social choice; voting paradoxes; electoral systems; election inversions;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
- D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2011-12-19 (All new papers)
- NEP-CDM-2011-12-19 (Collective Decision-Making)
- NEP-POL-2011-12-19 (Positive Political Economics)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Steven J. Brams & William S. Zwicker & D. Marc Kilgour, 1998.
"The paradox of multiple elections,"
Social Choice and Welfare,
Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 211-236.
- Gilbert Laffond & Jean Lainé, 2008. "The Budget-Voting Paradox," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 64(4), pages 447-478, June.
- van Deemen, Adrian M A & Vergunst, Noel P, 1998. " Empirical Evidence of Paradoxes of Voting in Dutch Elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 97(3), pages 475-90, December.
- Kurrild-Klitgaard, Peter, 2001.
" An Empirical Example of the Condorcet Paradox of Voting in a Large Electorate,"
Springer, vol. 107(1-2), pages 135-45, April.
- Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, 2001. "An Empirical Example of the Condorcet Paradox of Voting in a Large Electorate," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 107(1), pages 135-145, April.
- Marc Feix & Dominique Lepelley & Vincent Merlin & Jean-Louis Rouet, 2004. "The probability of conflicts in a U.S. presidential type election," Economic Theory, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 227-257, January.
Blog mentionsAs found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
- Do Danish voters get the government a majority prefer?
by Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard in Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard on 2012-04-10 09:33:00
- Empirical social choice - special issue of "Public Choice"
by Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard in Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard on 2014-02-17 09:15:00
- Kurrild-Klitgaard, Peter, 2014. "Empirical social choice: An introduction," MPRA Paper 53323, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Kurrild-Klitgaard, Peter, 2013. "Picking a loser? A social choice perspective on the Danish government formation of 1975," MPRA Paper 49682, University Library of Munich, Germany.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Ekkehart Schlicht).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.