IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/halshs-01102577.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Referendum paradox in a federal union with unequal populations: the three state case

Author

Listed:
  • Dominique Lepelley

    () (CEMOI - Centre d'Économie et de Management de l'Océan Indien - UR - Université de La Réunion)

  • Vincent Merlin

    () (CREM - Centre de recherche en économie et management - UNICAEN - Université de Caen Normandie - NU - Normandie Université - UR1 - Université de Rennes 1 - UNIV-RENNES - Université de Rennes - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Jean-Louis Rouet

    () (ISTO - Institut des Sciences de la Terre d'Orléans - UMR7327 - BRGM - Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Minières (BRGM) - OSUC - Observatoire des Sciences de l'Univers en région Centre - INSU - CNRS - Institut national des sciences de l'Univers - Observatoire de Paris - PSL - PSL Research University - UO - Université d'Orléans - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INSU - CNRS - Institut national des sciences de l'Univers - UO - Université d'Orléans - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Laurent Vidu

    (CREM - Centre de recherche en économie et management - UNICAEN - Université de Caen Normandie - NU - Normandie Université - UR1 - Université de Rennes 1 - UNIV-RENNES - Université de Rennes - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

In a federal union, a referendum paradox occurs each time a decision taken by representatives elected in separate jurisdictions (districts, states, regions) conflicts with the decision that would have been adopted if the voters had directly given their opinion via a referendum (Nurmi 1999). Assuming that the population is split into three jurisdictions of respective size n1, n2 and n3, we derive exact formulas for the probability of the referendum paradox under the Impartial Culture model. Then we use these results to show that, in our model, allocating seats to the juridictions proportionally to the square root of their size is an apportionment rule that fails to minimize the probability of the referendum paradox in some federations.

Suggested Citation

  • Dominique Lepelley & Vincent Merlin & Jean-Louis Rouet & Laurent Vidu, 2014. "Referendum paradox in a federal union with unequal populations: the three state case," Post-Print halshs-01102577, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-01102577
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01102577
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rahhal Lahrach & Vincent Merlin, 2012. "Which voting rule minimizes the probability of the referendum paradox? Lessons from French data," Post-Print halshs-00658580, HAL.
    2. Fabrice Barthélémy & Dominique Lepelley & Mathieu Martin, 2013. "On the likelihood of dummy players in weighted majority games," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 41(2), pages 263-279, July.
    3. Philip Straffin, 1977. "Homogeneity, independence, and power indices," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 107-118, June.
    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. Le Breton, Michel & Lepelley, Dominique & Macé, Antonin & Merlin, Vincent, 2017. "Le mécanisme optimal de vote au sein du conseil des représentants d’un système fédéral," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 93(1-2), pages 203-248, Mars-Juin.
    2. repec:kap:theord:v:84:y:2018:i:4:d:10.1007_s11238-018-9660-1 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    Keywords

    indirect voting; apportionment; paradoxes; federalism; probability;

    JEL classification:

    • D7 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making

    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:hal:journl:halshs-01102577. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (CCSD). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.