Advertisement

Public Choice

, Volume 131, Issue 1–2, pp 197–215 | Cite as

Evidence on voter preferences from unrestricted choice referendums

  • Randall G. Holcombe
  • Lawrence W. Kenny
Original Article

Abstract

From 1939 to 1968 Florida used a unique referendum system to set property tax rates for public school operating expenditures at the median millage rate selected by voters. These referendums revealed the entire distribution of voter preferences, which is not possible in the standard up or down referendum. We are the first to use the Florida referendum data. The form of the ballot played an important role in how people voted. Voting machine elections were much more likely than paper ballots to result in rejections of the recommendations of school boards, and produced much greater dispersion of expressed preferences.

Keywords

Referendum School referendum Voting machines Voting ballots Median voter 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bergstrom, T.C., Rubinfeld, D.L., & Shapiro, P. (1982). Micro-based estimates of demand functions for local school expenditures. Econometrica, 50(5), 1183–1206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Black, D. (1958). The Theory of Committees and Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bowen, H.R. (1943). The interpretation of voting in the allocation of economic resources. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 58, 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brennan, G., & Lomasky, L. (1993). Democracy and Decision: The Pure Theory of Electoral Preference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cameron, A.C., & Trivedi, P.K. (2005). Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Clarke, E.H. (1971). Multipart pricing of public goods. Public Choice, 11, 17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DeCanio, S.J. (1980). Economic losses from forecast error in agriculture. Journal of Political Economy, 88, 234–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Downs, A. (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  9. Fiorina, M.P. (1976). The voting decision: Instrumental and expressive aspects. Journal of Politics, 38, 390–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hamilton, J.T., & Ladd, H.F. (1996). Biased ballots? The impact of ballot structure on North Carolina elections in 1992. Public Choice, 87, 259–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Holcombe, R.G. (1977). The Florida system: A Bowen equilibrium referendum process. National Tax Journal, 30, 77–84.Google Scholar
  12. Holcombe, R.G. (1980). An empirical test of the median voter model. Economic Inquiry, 18, 260–274.Google Scholar
  13. Holcombe, R.G. (1989). The median voter model in public choice theory. Public Choice, 61, 115–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hotelling, H. (1929). Stability in competition. Economic Journal, 39, 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Husted, T.A., Kenny, L.W., & Morton, R.B. (1995). Constituent errors in assessing their senators. Public Choice, 83, 251–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 93, 1449–1475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lott, J.R. Jr. (2003). Nonvoted ballots and discrimination in Florida. Journal of Legal Studies, 32, 181–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lott, J.R. Jr. (2004). Non-voted ballots, Voter Fatigue, and Race. Working paper.Google Scholar
  19. Lupia, A. (1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review, 88, 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McKelvey, R.D. (1976). Intransitivities in multi dimensional voting models and some implications for agenda control. Journal of Economic Theory, 12, 472–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mueller, D.C. (2003). Public Choice III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Munley, V.G. (1982). An alternative test of the Tiebout hypothesis. Public Choice, 38, 211–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Munley, V.G. (1984). Has the median voter found a ballot box that he can control? Economic Inquiry, 22, 323–336.Google Scholar
  24. Nechyba, T.J. (1990). The southern wage gap, human capital, and the quality of education. Southern Economic Journal, 57, 308–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Romer, T., & Rosenthal, H. (1978). Political resource allocation, controlled agendas, and the status quo. Public Choice, 33, 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schmidt, A.B., Kenny, L.W., & Morton, R.B. (1996). Evidence on electoral accountability in the U.S. senate: Are unfaithful agents really punished? Economic Inquiry, 34, 545–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schultz, T.W. (1975). The value of the ability to deal with disequilibria. Journal of Economic Literature, 13, 827–846.Google Scholar
  28. Stata. (2001). Stata Reference Manual Release 7, Volume 2 H-P. College Station, Texas: State Press.Google Scholar
  29. Thomas, N.C. (1968). Voting machines and voter participation in four Michigan constitutional revision referenda. Western Political Quarterly, 21, 409–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tideman, T.N., & Tullock, G. (1976). A new and superior process for making social choices. Journal of Political Economy, 84, 1145–1160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations