IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v94y2000i03p683-684_22.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Vote Buying, Supermajorities, and Flooded Coalitions

Author

Listed:
  • Groseclose, Tim
  • Snyder, James M.

Abstract

In a recent paper, Banks (2000), adopting the framework of our model (Groseclose and Snyder 1996), derives several new and noteworthy results. In addition, he provides a counterexample to our proposition 4. Here we explain the error in our proposition but note that we can correct it easily if we invoke an additional assumption: In equilibrium the winning vote buyer constructs a nonflooded coalition, that is, she does not bribe every member of her coalition. We conclude with a brief discussion of the substantive implications of Banks's proposition 1; we note that it provides additional support for our general claim that minimal winning coalitions should be rare in a vote-buying game.

Suggested Citation

  • Groseclose, Tim & Snyder, James M., 2000. "Vote Buying, Supermajorities, and Flooded Coalitions," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 94(3), pages 683-684, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:94:y:2000:i:03:p:683-684_22
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400222156/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. Boyer, Pierre C. & Konrad, Kai A. & Roberson, Brian, 2017. "Targeted campaign competition, loyal voters, and supermajorities," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 49-62.
    2. Agustín Casas & Martín Gonzalez-Eiras, 2021. "Cooperation and Retaliation in Legislative Bargaining," Working Papers 95, Red Nacional de Investigadores en Economía (RedNIE).
    3. Geir Asheim & Carl Claussen & Tore Nilssen, 2006. "Majority voting leads to unanimity," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 35(1), pages 91-110, December.
    4. Bernard Grofman & Scott Feld, 2005. "Thinking About the Political Impacts of the Electoral College," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 123(1), pages 1-18, April.
    5. Christian Dippel, 2012. "Groseclose and Snyder in finite legislatures," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 24(2), pages 265-273, April.
    6. Kai A. Konrad & Stergios Skaperdas, 2007. "Succession Rules and Leadership Rents," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 51(4), pages 622-645, August.
    7. David P Baron, 2019. "Lobbying dynamics," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 31(3), pages 403-452, July.

    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:94:y:2000:i:03:p:683-684_22. 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.