IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v153y2012i3p287-293.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The institutional dimension of election design

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Edelman

Abstract

The traditional approach to election design focuses solely on the best method to aggregate the preferences of the voters. But elections are run by institutions, and the interests of the institution may not be reflected in the preferences of the voter. In this comment I discuss how institutional considerations come into play in election design in three areas: political representation, corporate voting, and judging in competitions. As an illustration of this institutional approach I appraise the method by which the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences selects the nominees and winners of the Oscars. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Edelman, 2012. "The institutional dimension of election design," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 153(3), pages 287-293, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:153:y:2012:i:3:p:287-293
    DOI: 10.1007/s11127-011-9794-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11127-011-9794-y
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11127-011-9794-y?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. Michel Balinski & Rida Laraki, 2011. "Majority Judgment: Measuring, Ranking, and Electing," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262015137, December.
    2. J. Mulherin, 2005. "Corporations, collective action and corporate governance: One size does not fit all," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 124(1), pages 179-204, July.
    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. Marta Kuc-Czarnecka & Andrea Saltelli, 2025. "Ranking the rankers. An analysis of science-wide author databases of standardised citation indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(3), pages 1497-1517, March.
    2. repec:osf:socarx:34df5_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Harold Mulherin, J., 2007. "Measuring the costs and benefits of regulation: Conceptual issues in securities markets," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 13(2-3), pages 421-437, June.
    4. Antonin Macé, 2017. "Voting with evaluations: characterizations of evaluative voting and range voting," Working Papers halshs-01222200, HAL.
    5. Arnold Cédrick SOH VOUTSA, 2020. "Approval Voting & Majority Judgment in Weighted Representative Democracy," THEMA Working Papers 2020-15, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    6. Marcus Pivato, 2013. "Voting rules as statistical estimators," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(2), pages 581-630, February.
    7. Dhillon, Amrita & Kotsialou, Grammateia & McBurney, Peter & Riley, Luke, 2019. "Voting over a distributed ledger: An interdisciplinary perspective," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 416, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    8. Erdamar, Bora & Sanver, M. Remzi & Sato, Shin, 2017. "Evaluationwise strategy-proofness," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 227-238.
    9. Cattaneo, Mattia & Meoli, Michele & Vismara, Silvio, 2015. "Financial regulation and IPOs: Evidence from the history of the Italian stock market," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 116-131.
    10. Vincent Merlin & İpek Özkal Sanver & M. Remzi Sanver, 2019. "Compromise Rules Revisited," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 63-78, February.
    11. Youssef Allouah & Rachid Guerraoui & L^e-Nguy^en Hoang & Oscar Villemaud, 2022. "Robust Sparse Voting," Papers 2202.08656, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    12. Rida Laraki & Estelle Varloot, 2021. "Level-strategyproof Belief Aggregation Mechanisms," Papers 2108.04705, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2022.
    13. Adrien Fabre, 2021. "Tie-breaking the highest median: alternatives to the majority judgment," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(1), pages 101-124, January.
    14. Faozi A Almaqtari & Najib H S Farhan & Hamood Mohammed Al-Hattami & Tamer Elsheikh, 2022. "The moderation role of board independence change in the relationship between board characteristics, related party transactions, and financial performance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(12), pages 1-38, December.
    15. García-Lapresta, José Luis & Marques Pereira, Ricardo Alberto, 2022. "An extension of Majority Judgment to non-uniform qualitative scales," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 301(2), pages 667-674.
    16. Klaus Nehring & Marcus Pivato, 2022. "The median rule in judgement aggregation," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 73(4), pages 1051-1100, June.
    17. Wintoki, M. Babajide, 2007. "Corporate boards and regulation: The effect of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the exchange listing requirements on firm value," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 13(2-3), pages 229-250, June.
    18. Netter, Jeffry & Poulsen, Annette & Stegemoller, Mike, 2009. "The rise of corporate governance in corporate control research," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 1-9, February.
    19. Franz Dietrich & Kai Spiekermann, 2021. "Social Epistemology," Post-Print halshs-02431971, HAL.
    20. Jaekwon Suh, 2012. "Corporate governance under proportional electoral systems," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 150(3), pages 671-690, March.
    21. Aleksei Y. Kondratev & Alexander S. Nesterov, 2020. "Measuring majority power and veto power of voting rules," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 183(1), pages 187-210, April.

    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:kap:pubcho:v:153:y:2012:i:3:p:287-293. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.