Agenda trees and sincere voting: a response to Schwartz
- 73 Downloads
Schwartz (Public Choice 136:353–377, 2008) has identified a controversy within the voting theory literature pertaining to the representation of agenda structures and the consequent definition of sincere voting. This note responds to Schwartz’s remarks by arguing that the kind of agenda tree he uses does not adequately represent some common parliamentary agendas, and that consequently his definition of sincere voting cannot always be applied.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Bjurulf, B. H., & Niemi, R. G. (1982). Order-of-voting effects. In M. J. Holler (Ed.), Power, voting, and voting power (pp. 153–178). Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag. Google Scholar
- Black, D. (1958). The theory of committees and elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
- Farquharson, R. (1956a). Straightforwardness in voting procedures. Oxford Economic Papers (New Series), 8, 80–89. Google Scholar
- Farquharson, R. (1956b). Strategic information in games and in voting. In C. Cherry (Ed.), Information theory. Stoneham: Butterworths. Google Scholar
- Farquharson, R. (1969). Theory of voting. New Haven: Yale University Press. Google Scholar
- Groseclose, T., & Krebiel, K. (1993). On the pervasiveness of sophisticated sincerity. In W. A. Barnett, M. J. Hinich, & N. J. Schofield (Eds.), Political economy: Institutions, competition, and representation (pp. 247–277). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
- Miller, N. R. (1995). Committees, agendas, and voting. Reading: Harwood Academic. Google Scholar