IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/pepspp/v19y2013i2p249-273n5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

“Peace-ful” Voting Procedures

Author

Listed:
  • Emerson Peter

    (The de Borda Institute – HQ, 36 Ballysillan Road, Belfast BT14 7QQ, UK)

Abstract

In conflict zones, the phrase, “The democratic process is a vital part of the peace process”, is often heard. Yet many voting procedures are far from “peace-ful”. Indeed, in many instances, divisive and adversarial voting procedures have not only failed to heal the dispute, they have in fact exacerbated the situation and, at worst, been the catalysts of violence.In the democratic process, voting may be used either (a) by the people (i) to make a decision in a referendum and (ii) to choose their representatives in local and general elections, and/or (b) by these representatives (i) when formulating policies and (ii) when electing a power-sharing administration and/or sub-committees. This article looks at all of these voting procedures: first in regard to the present situation; next with respect to those jurisdictions which have tried to use more inclusive methodologies; and thirdly, as part of a polity which at the very least could facilitate the resolution of conflicts and, at best, help to prevent any recurrence. In all three sections, it concludes by asking, and answering, the following question: Will consensus voting work?

Suggested Citation

  • Emerson Peter, 2013. "“Peace-ful” Voting Procedures," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 19(2), pages 249-273, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:pepspp:v:19:y:2013:i:2:p:249-273:n:5
    DOI: 10.1515/peps-2013-0010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/peps-2013-0010
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/peps-2013-0010?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Saari,Donald G., 2008. "Disposing Dictators, Demystifying Voting Paradoxes," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521731607, June.
    2. Saari,Donald G., 2008. "Disposing Dictators, Demystifying Voting Paradoxes," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521516051, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Conal Duddy & Ashley Piggins & William Zwicker, 2016. "Aggregation of binary evaluations: a Borda-like approach," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(2), pages 301-333, February.
    2. Shmuel Nitzan, 2010. "Demystifying the ‘metric approach to social compromise with the unanimity criterion’," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 35(1), pages 25-28, June.
    3. Pierre Dehez & Victor Ginsburgh, 2020. "Approval voting and Shapley ranking," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 184(3), pages 415-428, September.
    4. Peter Emerson, 2013. "The original Borda count and partial voting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(2), pages 353-358, February.
    5. Donald G. Saari, 2014. "A New Way to Analyze Paired Comparison Rules," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 39(3), pages 647-655, August.
    6. Donald Saari, 2010. "Peter Emerson (ed): Designing an all-inclusive democracy," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 35(2), pages 331-335, July.
    7. Wesley H. Holliday & Chase Norman & Eric Pacuit & Saam Zahedian, 2022. "Impossibility theorems involving weakenings of expansion consistency and resoluteness in voting," Papers 2208.06907, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2023.
    8. Saari, Donald G. & McIntee, Tomas J., 2013. "Connecting pairwise and positional election outcomes," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 140-151.
    9. Donald G. Saari, 2019. "Arrow, and unexpected consequences of his theorem," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 179(1), pages 133-144, April.
    10. Andrew C. Eggers, 2021. "A diagram for analyzing ordinal voting systems," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(1), pages 143-171, January.
    11. Piggins, Ashley & Salerno, Gillian, 2016. "Sen cycles and externalities," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 25-27.
    12. Eric Kamwa, 2022. "Scoring Rules, Ballot Truncation, and the Truncation Paradox," Working Papers hal-03632662, HAL.
    13. Eric Kamwa, 2022. "Scoring rules, ballot truncation, and the truncation paradox," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 192(1), pages 79-97, July.
    14. Mostapha Diss & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2018. "Another perspective on Borda’s paradox," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(1), pages 99-121, January.
    15. Manzoor Ahmad Zahid & Harrie de Swart, 2015. "Experimental Results about Linguistic Voting," Czech Economic Review, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, vol. 9(3), pages 184-201, December.
    16. Donald Saari, 2011. "Source of complexity in the social and managerial sciences: an extended Sen’s theorem," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 37(4), pages 609-620, October.
    17. William Keech & Michael Munger, 2015. "The anatomy of government failure," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 164(1), pages 1-42, July.
    18. Wu-Hsiung Huang, 2014. "Singularity and Arrow’s paradox," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(3), pages 671-706, March.
    19. Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit, 2020. "Arrow’s decisive coalitions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 54(2), pages 463-505, March.
    20. Thomas Ratliff & Donald Saari, 2014. "Complexities of electing diverse committees," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 43(1), pages 55-71, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:pepspp:v:19:y:2013:i:2:p:249-273:n:5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.