The Closed Rule and the Paradox of Voting

Abstract

Previous articleNext article No AccessThe Closed Rule and the Paradox of VotingJohn C. BlydenburghJohn C. Blydenburgh Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Journal of Politics Volume 33, Number 1Feb., 1971 Sponsored by the Southern Political Science Association Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.2307/2128532 Views: 16Total views on this site Citations: 23Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1971 Southern Political Science AssociationPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Valerio Dotti Reaching across the aisle to block reforms, Economic Theory 72, no.22 (Aug 2020): 533–578.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00199-020-01298-6Jim Granato, Melody Lo, M. C. Sunny Wong Empirical Implications of Theoretical Models in Political Science, 1 (May 2021).https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139026819Donald P. Green, Alan S. Gerber Voter Mobilization, Experimentation, and Translational Social Science, Perspectives on Politics 14, no.33 (Aug 2016): 738–749.https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592716001158Eerik Lagerspetz Social Choice in the Real World, (Jan 2016): 383–430.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23261-4_7Adrian Van Deemen On the empirical relevance of Condorcet’s paradox, Public Choice 158, no.3-43-4 (Nov 2013): 311–330.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-013-0133-3Jan Skalík Pozměňovací návrh jako indikátor při přijímání české legislativy životního prostředí, Sociální studia / Social Studies 10, no.11 (Jan 2013): 75.https://doi.org/10.5817/SOC2013-1-75William V. Gehrlein, Dominique Lepelley Voting Paradoxes and Their Probabilities, (Jul 2010): 1–47.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03107-6_1Gerry Mackie Democracy Defended, 20 (Sep 2009).https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511490293Gary Prevost, Robert Weber The Prospects for the Free Trade Area of the Américas in the Bush Administration, (Jan 2002): 67–106.https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230107434_4John D. Wilkerson “Killer” Amendments in Congress, American Political Science Review 93, no.33 (Aug 2014): 535–552.https://doi.org/10.2307/2585573Ad M. A. Van Deemen, Noël P. Vergunst Empirical evidence of paradoxes of voting in Dutch elections, (Jan 1998): 257–272.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-5127-7_11Eerik Lagerspetz Social Choice in the Real World II: Cyclical Preferences and Strategic Voting in the Finnish Presidential Elections, Scandinavian Political Studies 20, no.11 (Mar 1997): 53–67.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9477.1997.tb00184.xDan S Felsenthal, Moshé Machover Who ought to be elected and who is actually elected? An empirical investigation of 92 elections under three procedures, Electoral Studies 14, no.22 (Jun 1995): 143–169.https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-3794(94)00019-6Dan S. Felsenthal, Zeev Maoz, Amnon Rapoport An Empirical Evaluation of Six Voting Procedures: Do They Really Make Any Difference?, British Journal of Political Science 23, no.11 (Jan 2009): 1–27.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123400006542Dan S. Felsenthal, Moshé Machover After two centuries, should condorcet's voting procedure be implemented?, Behavioral Science 37, no.44 (Oct 1992): 250–274.https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830370403Arthur Denzau, William Riker, Kenneth Shepsle Farquharson and Fenno: Sophisticated Voting and Home Style, American Political Science Review 79, no.44 (Dec 1985): 1117–1134.https://doi.org/10.2307/1956251 Bibliography, (Jan 1985): 215–224.https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-125455-1.50016-7William V. Gehrlein Condorcet's paradox, Theory and Decision 15, no.22 (Jun 1983): 161–197.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00143070E. M. Uslaner Manipulation of the Agenda by Strategic Voting: Separable and Nonseparable Preferences, (Jan 1981): 135–152.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-00411-1_10John R. Chamberlin, Michael D. Cohen Toward Applicable Social Choice Theory: A Comparison of Social Choice Functions under Spatial Model Assumptions, American Political Science Review 72, no.44 (Aug 2014): 1341–1356.https://doi.org/10.2307/1954543Terry Sullivan Voter's paradox and logrolling, Public Choice 25, no.11 (Mar 1976): 31–44.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01726329Joe Oppenheimer Some Political Implications of “Vote Trading and the Voting Paradox: A Proof of Logical Equivalence:” A Comment, American Political Science Review 69, no.33 (Aug 2014): 963–966.https://doi.org/10.2307/1958412Nicholas R. Miller Logrolling and the arrow paradox: A note, Public Choice 21, no.11 (Mar 1975): 107–110.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01705951