IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v186y2021i1d10.1007_s11127-019-00767-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Will quadratic voting produce optimal public policy?

Author

Listed:
  • John C. Goodman

    (Goodman Institute for Public Policy Research)

  • Philip K. Porter

    (University of South Florida)

Abstract

Under quadratic voting people are able to buy votes with money. The claims that rational voters will make efficient electoral choices rest on assumptions about how voters acquire and share information. Specifically, that all voters share common knowledge about the probability that any one of them will be the decisive voter, but do not (appear to) share knowledge in any specialized way within special interest groups. This paper asserts that quadratic voting is no more likely to promote efficiency than the current system of one-person-one-vote. Information costs are critical. If information is costly, organized interest groups on either side of an issue provide low-cost information to their members and sharing common knowledge across groups is less likely. Then, small differences lead to large welfare losses. If information is free, special-interest groups provide opportunities for collusion that undermines the efficiency of quadratic voting. Even if collusion could be prevented, the dual uses of money to buy votes and to disseminate information organizes interest groups as if their members were colluding. The role of information and the fact that voting is not costless create efficiency biases under quadratic voting that favor political organization and concentrated values. To the extent that these attributes are overrepresented in the present system, quadratic voting will only make it worse.

Suggested Citation

  • John C. Goodman & Philip K. Porter, 2021. "Will quadratic voting produce optimal public policy?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 186(1), pages 141-148, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:186:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s11127-019-00767-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11127-019-00767-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11127-019-00767-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11127-019-00767-4?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. John Goodman & Philip Porter, 1988. "Theory of competitive regulatory equilibrium," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 59(1), pages 51-66, October.
    2. John Goodman & Philip Porter, 1985. "Majority voting and Pareto optimality," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 173-186, January.
    3. Gary S. Becker, 1983. "A Theory of Competition Among Pressure Groups for Political Influence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 98(3), pages 371-400.
    4. Nicolaus Tideman & Florenz Plassmann, 2017. "Efficient collective decision-making, marginal cost pricing, and quadratic voting," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 172(1), pages 45-73, July.
    5. E. Glen Weyl, 2017. "The robustness of quadratic voting," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 172(1), pages 75-107, July.
    6. John C. Goodman & Philip K. Porter, 2004. "Political Equilibrium and the Provision of Public Goods," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 120(3_4), pages 247-266, September.
    7. Steven P. Lalley & E. Glen Weyl, 2018. "Quadratic Voting: How Mechanism Design Can Radicalize Democracy," AEA Papers and Proceedings, American Economic Association, vol. 108, pages 33-37, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Damon Proulx & David A. Savage & David Stadelmann & Benno Torgler, 2021. "To Swing or Not to Swing: An Assessment of Age and Political Cynicism of Swing Voting," CREMA Working Paper Series 2021-24, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).

    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. Darcy W. E. Allen & Chris Berg & Aaron M. Lane & Jason Potts, 2020. "Cryptodemocracy and its institutional possibilities," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 33(3), pages 363-374, September.
    2. Subhasish M. Chowdhury & Sang-Hyun Kim, 2021. "The Central Influencer Theorem: Spatial Voting Contests with Endogenous Coalition Formation," Working papers 2021rwp-193, Yonsei University, Yonsei Economics Research Institute.
    3. Takeshi Kato & Yasuhiro Asa & Misa Owa, 2021. "Positionality-Weighted Aggregation Methods for Cumulative Voting," International Journal of Social Science Studies, Redfame publishing, vol. 9(2), pages 79-88, December.
    4. Persson, Torsten & Tabellini, Guido, 2002. "Political economics and public finance," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 24, pages 1549-1659, Elsevier.
    5. Anders Gustafsson, 2019. "Busy doing nothing: why politicians implement inefficient policies," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 282-299, September.
    6. Bryan Caplan & Edward Stringham, 2005. "Mises, bastiat, public opinion, and public choice," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(1), pages 79-105.
    7. Tin Cheuk Leung & Kwok Ping Ping & Kevin K. Tsui, 2019. "What can deregulators deregulate? The case of electricity," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 1-32, August.
    8. Fu, Tong & Jian, Ze, 2020. "A developmental state: How to allocate electricity efficiently in a developing country," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    9. Rosenzweig, Mark R. & Wolpin, Kenneth I., 1984. "Externalities, Heterogeneity and the Optimal Distribution of Public Programs: Child Health and Family Planning Interventions," Bulletins 8435, University of Minnesota, Economic Development Center.
    10. Francis,David C. & Kubinec ,Robert, 2022. "Beyond Political Connections : A Measurement Model Approach to Estimating Firm-levelPolitical Influence in 41 Economies," Policy Research Working Paper Series 10119, The World Bank.
    11. Boone, Peter, 1996. "Politics and the effectiveness of foreign aid," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 289-329, February.
    12. Grant H. Lewis, 2017. "Effects of federal socioeconomic contracting preferences," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 49(4), pages 763-783, December.
    13. Deniz Igan & Prachi Mishra & Thierry Tressel, 2012. "A Fistful of Dollars: Lobbying and the Financial Crisis," NBER Macroeconomics Annual, University of Chicago Press, vol. 26(1), pages 195-230.
    14. Vincent Smith & Justus H. H. Wesseler & David Zilberman, 2021. "New Plant Breeding Technologies: An Assessment of the Political Economy of the Regulatory Environment and Implications for Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, March.
    15. Beck, Thorsten & Demirguc-Kunt, Asli & Levine, Ross, 2006. "Bank supervision and corruption in lending," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(8), pages 2131-2163, November.
    16. Roberts, Donna & Orden, David, 1995. "Determinants of Technical Barriers to Trade: The Case of US Phytosanitary Restrictions on Mexican Avocados, 1972-1995," 1995: Understanding Technical Barriers to Agricultural Trade Conference, December 1995, Tucson, Arizona 50709, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    17. Knight, J.B. & Sabot, R.H., 1988. "Lewis Through A Looking Glass: Public Sector Employment, Rent-Seeking And Economic Growth," Center for Development Economics 108, Department of Economics, Williams College.
    18. John C. Beghin & William E. Foster & Mylene Kherallah, 1996. "Institutions And Market Distortions: International Evidence For Tobacco," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1‐4), pages 355-365, January.
    19. Koichi Hamada & Asahi Noguchi, 2005. "The Role of Preconceived Ideas in Macroeconomic Policy: Japan's Experiences in the Two Deflationary Periods," Working Papers 908, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.
    20. Said-Nour Samake, 2022. "Prudential Regulation and Bank Efficiency : Evidence from WAEMU Zone," Working Papers hal-03540209, HAL.

    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:186:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s11127-019-00767-4. 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.