IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v93y1999i01p85-97_21.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Minority Voting Rights Can Maximize Majority Welfare

Author

Listed:
  • Chwe, Michael Suk-Young

Abstract

I use Condorcet's information aggregation model to show that sometimes the best possible decision procedure for the majority allows the minority to “enforce†its favored outcome even when overruled by a majority. “Special†voting power gives the minority an incentive to participate meaningfully, and more participation means more information is aggregated, which makes the majority better off. This result can be understood as a mathematical corroboration of Lani Guinier's arguments that voting procedures can be designed to encourage minority participation, benefitting everyone.

Suggested Citation

  • Chwe, Michael Suk-Young, 1999. "Minority Voting Rights Can Maximize Majority Welfare," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(1), pages 85-97, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:93:y:1999:i:01:p:85-97_21
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400216638/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Laurent Bouton & Aniol Llorente-Saguer & Frédéric Malherbe, 2014. "Get Rid of Unanimity: The Superiority of Majority Rule with Veto Power," NBER Working Papers 20417, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Gershkov, Alex & Szentes, Balázs, 2009. "Optimal voting schemes with costly information acquisition," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(1), pages 36-68, January.
    3. Ernst Maug & Bilge Yilmaz, "undated". "Two-Class Voting: A Mechanism for Conflict Resolution?," Rodney L. White Center for Financial Research Working Papers 4-00, Wharton School Rodney L. White Center for Financial Research.
    4. Daiki Kishishita & Atsushi Yamagishi, 2022. "Do supermajority rules really deter extremism? the role of electoral competition 1," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 34(1), pages 127-144, January.
    5. Casella, Alessandra & Gelman, Andrew & Ehrenberg, Shuky & Shen, Jie, 2008. "Protecting Minorities in Binary Elections. A Test of Storable Votes Using Field Data," CEPR Discussion Papers 6851, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Laurent Bouto & Aniol Llorente-Saguer & Fédéric Malherbe, 2014. "Get Rid of Unanimity: The Superiority of Majority Rule with Veto Power," Working Papers 722, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    7. Duggan, John & Martinelli, Cesar, 2001. "A Bayesian Model of Voting in Juries," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 259-294, November.
    8. Elisabeth Schulte, 2010. "Information aggregation and preference heterogeneity in committees," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(1), pages 97-118, July.
    9. Ernst Maug & Bilge Yilmaz, 2002. "Two-Class Voting: A Mechanism for Conflict Resolution," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1448-1471, December.
    10. Casella Alessandra & Ehrenberg Shuky & Gelman Andrew & Shen Jie, 2010. "Protecting Minorities in Large Binary Elections: A Test of Storable Votes Using Field Data," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-35, October.
    11. Nicolae STEF, 2013. "Severity of the Voting Rules in Bankruptcy," Working Papers of LaRGE Research Center 2013-07, Laboratoire de Recherche en Gestion et Economie (LaRGE), Université de Strasbourg.
    12. Martinelli, Cesar, 2002. "Convergence Results for Unanimous Voting," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 105(2), pages 278-297, August.
    13. Hans Gersbach, 2002. "Democratic Mechanisms: Double Majority Rules and Flexible Agenda Costs," CESifo Working Paper Series 749, CESifo.
    14. Duane A. Cooper, 2007. "The Potential of Cumulative Voting To Yield Fair Representation," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 19(3), pages 277-295, July.
    15. Li Hao & Wing Suen, 2009. "Viewpoint: Decision‐making in committees," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(2), pages 359-392, May.
    16. Ernst Maug & Bilge Yilmaz, "undated". "Two-Class Voting: A Mechanism for Conflict Resolution?," Rodney L. White Center for Financial Research Working Papers 04-00, Wharton School Rodney L. White Center for Financial Research.
    17. Hongbin Cai, 2009. "Costly participation and heterogeneous preferences in informational committees," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 40(1), pages 173-189, March.
    18. Stef Nicolae, 2017. "Voting Rules in Bankruptcy Law," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 13(1), pages 1-39, March.
    19. Hans Gersbach, 2022. "New Forms of Democracy," CESifo Working Paper Series 10134, CESifo.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:cup:apsrev:v:93:y:1999:i:01:p:85-97_21. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    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.