Advertisement

Public Choice

, Volume 124, Issue 1–2, pp 115–133 | Cite as

Nineteenth-century voting procedures in a twenty-first century world

  • Michael C. Munger
Article
  • 38 Downloads

Abstract

Voting procedures nowadays are anachronistic on two counts: the technology of recording and counting votes often is outmoded and too much is expected from the mechanisms of democratic choice. Even if votes always and everywhere were counted perfectly, election outcomes would still be arbitrary since no collective choice process can divine the “general will”. The crucial line in any state is the one dividing private decisions from collective decisions. Democracy is part of the package for nations freeing themselves from totalitarianism’s grip, but it may be the last, rather than the first thing that should be added to the mix.

Keywords

Public Finance Collective Decision Election Outcome Choice Process Collective Choice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abramson, P. R., Aldrich, J. H., Paolino, P., & Rohde, D. W. (1995). Third party and independent candidates in American politics: Wallace, Anderson, and Perot. Political Science Quarterly, 110(3), 349–367.Google Scholar
  2. Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The Market for “Lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488–500.Google Scholar
  3. Aldrich, J. H. (1995). Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.Google Scholar
  4. Black, D. (1958). The Theory of Committees and Elections. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge and New York.Google Scholar
  5. Beck, N. (1975). A note on the probability of a tied election. Public Choice, 23(3), 75–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buchanan, J. M. (1954). Individual Choice in Voting and the Market. Journal of Political Economy, 62(4), 334–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buchanan, J. M., & Congleton, R. D. (1998). Politics by Principle, Not Interest: Toward Nondiscriminatory Democracy. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge and New York.Google Scholar
  8. Buchanan, J. M., & Tullock, G. (1962). The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy. University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  9. Chamberlain, G., & Rothschild, M. (1981). A note on the probability of casting a decisive vote. Journal of Economic Theory, 25(1), 152–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cox, G. W. (1997). Making Votes Count: Political Economy of Institutions and Decisions. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge and New York.Google Scholar
  11. Davis, O., DeGroot, M., & Hinich, M. (1972). Social preference orderings and majority rule. Econometrica, 40(January), 147–157.Google Scholar
  12. Davis, O., & Hinich, M. (1968). On the power and importance of the mean preference in a mathematical model of democratic choice. Public Choice, 5(Fall), 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ehrlich, S. (2001). The Probability of Recounts under Differing Electoral Laws. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Political Science Association. URL: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~ehrlichs/probability-of-recounts.pdf.
  14. Ekelund, R. B., Jr., & Tollison, R. D. (1997). Politicized Economies: Monarchy, Monopoly, and Mercantilism. Texas A&M University Press: College Station.Google Scholar
  15. Herrnson, P., & Green, J. C. (Eds.). (2003). Responsible Partnership? The Evolution of American Political Parties in the Post-War Era. University of Kansas Press: Lawrence.Google Scholar
  16. Herron, M. C., & Sekhon, J. S. (2003). Overvoting and representation: An examination of overvoted Presidential ballots in Broward and Miami-Dade counties. Electoral Studies, 22(1), 21–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Herron, M. C., & Sekhon, J. S. (2004). Black candidates and black voters: Assessing the impact of candidate race on uncounted vote rates. Journal of Politics, 67(1), forthcoming.Google Scholar
  18. Hinich, M., & Munger, M. (1994). Ideology and the Theory of Political Choice. University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  19. Holcombe, R. G. (1994). The Economic Foundations of Government. Macmillan: London.Google Scholar
  20. Holcombe, R. G. (2002). From Liberty to Democracy: The Transformation of American Government. University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  21. Kimbering, W. C. (n.d.). The Electoral College. Federal Election Commission, Office of Election Administration: Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  22. Lott, J. R., Jr. (2003). Non-voted ballots and discrimination in Florida. Journal of Legal Studies, 32(January), 181–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lott, J. R., Jr. (2004). Documenting Unusual Declines in Republican Voting Rates in Florida’s Western Panhandle Counties in 2000. http://ssrn.com/abstract=276278.
  24. Madison, J. (1787). The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard against Domestic Faction and Insurrection (continued). Daily Advertiser, Thursday, November 22. Reprinted as Federalist No. 10, http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm.
  25. Margolis, H. (1977). Probability of a tie election. Public Choice, 31(Fall), 135–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mebane, W., & Sekhon, J. S. (2004). Robust estimation and outlier detection for overdispersed multinomial models of count data. American Journal of Political Science, 48(2), 392–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mencken, H. L. ([1926] 1982). Notes on Democracy. Knopf: New York. Reprinted in A Mencken Chrestomathy. Vintage Books: New York.Google Scholar
  28. Mueller, D. C. (2003). Public Choice III. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge and New York.Google Scholar
  29. Munger, M. C. (2000). Analyzing Policy: Choices, Conflicts, and Practices. Norton: New York.Google Scholar
  30. O’Rourke, P. J. (1991). Parliament of Whores. Atlantic Monthly Press: New York.Google Scholar
  31. Plato (1956). Republic. In E. H. Warmington & P. G. Rouse (Eds.), Great Dialogues of Plato, trans. by W. H.D. Rouse. New English Library (Mentor): New York.Google Scholar
  32. Plott, C. R. (1972). Ethics, social choice theory and the theory of economic policy. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 2(2), 181–208.Google Scholar
  33. Plott, C. R. (1991). Will economics become an experimental science? Southern Economic Journal, 57(April), 901–919.Google Scholar
  34. Pulzer, P. (2001). Votes and resources: Political finance in Germany. German Politics and Society, 19(1), 1–36.Google Scholar
  35. Rabinowitz, G., & MacDonald, S. E. (1986). The power of the states in U.S. Presidential Elections. American Political Science Review, 80(1), 65–87.Google Scholar
  36. Riker, W. H. (1982). Liberalism against Populism. W.H. Freeman: San Francisco.Google Scholar
  37. Rosenstone, S. J., Behr, R. L., & Lazarus, E. H. (1986). Third Parties in America, 2nd ed. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  38. Rousseau, J.-J. (1988). On Social Contract or Principles of Political Right. In A. Ritter & J. Conaway Bondanella (Eds.), Rousseau’s Political Writings. Norton: New York.Google Scholar
  39. Stone, W., & Rapoport, R. (2001). It’s Perot, stupid! The legacy of the 1992 Perot Movement in the major-party system, 1992–2000. Political Science and Politics, 34(2), 49–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tullock, G. (1967). The general irrelevance of the general impossibility theorem. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 81(2), 256–270.Google Scholar
  41. Wand, J. N. A., Shotts, K. W., Sekhon, J. S., Mebane, W. R., Jr., Herron, M. C., & Brady, H. E. (2001). The butterfly did it: The aberrant vote for Buchanan in Palm Beach County, Florida. American Political Science Review, 95(4), 793–810.Google Scholar
  42. Winger, R. (1994). The importance of ballot access. Long Term View (University of Massachusetts Law Journal), 2(2), 40–45.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael C. Munger
    • 1
  1. 1.Departments of Political Science and EconomicsDuke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations