Abstract
In this paper we consider several ways in which voting systems can be manipulated and we pose some related ethical questions. Our focus is on the recent phenomenon of vote trading or vote swapping that was invented in 2000 and used in the 2000 and 2004 U.S. Presidential elections. Vote trading is an Internet-based technique that sought to allow Democrats in heavily Republican states (like Texas) to effectively vote in swing states (like Florida), where their votes would have more impact. We also look at some other new ways that voting systems can be manipulated and we consider the general question of whether there exist voting systems that cannot be manipulated.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arrow K. J. 1963 Social Choice and Individual Values, 2nd ed. Wiley: New York
Biever, C.: April 30: 2005, ‹Voter Empowered␣by␣Internet Swap Shop’, New Scientist (2497), newscientist.com
Brams, S. and P. C. Fishburn: Sept. 1978, ‹Approval Voting’, American Political Science Review 72, 831–847
Easley R. F. 2005 Ethical Issues in the Music Industry Response to Innovation and Piracy. Journal of Business Ethics 62, 163–168 December
Electoral College: Oct. 9, 2006, Encyclopædia Britannica Online. http://search.eb.com/eb/article–214669
Federal Elections Commission: Oct. 10, 2003, www.fec.gov/pages/elecvote.htm,
Gibbard A. 1973 Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result. Econometrica 41, 587–602 July
Grieve, T.: Aug. 1, 2006, ‹The Pennsylvania Green Party/GOP nexus’, Salon.com
Hartvigsen D. 2006 Vote Trading in Public Elections. Mathematical Social Sciences 52:31–48
Ledbetter, J.: May 4, 2001, ‹Vote Swapping Hits the U.K.’, cnn.com
Lee E. 2005 The Ethics of Innovation: p2p Software Developers and Designing Substantial Noninfringing Uses Under the Sony Doctrine. Journal of Business Ethics 62, 147–162 December
Lyman, R.: Sept. 22, 2006, ‹Innovator Devises Way Around Electoral College’, New York Times (www.nyt.com)
Mueller D. C. 2003 Public Choice III. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge
Randazza M. J. 2001 The Constitutionality of Online Vote Swapping. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 34, 1297–1337 June
Raskin, J. B.: 2000, ‹How to Save Al Gore's Bacon by Trading Votes on the Internet’, Slate Magazine, see slate.msn.com
Raskin J. B. 2003 Overruling Democracy, The Supreme Court vs. The American People. Routledge: New York
Ridegeway, J.: Sept. 27–Oct. 23, 2000, ‹Beatification of Ralph’, Village Voice, see villagevoice.com
Saari D. G. 1990 Susceptibility to Manipulation. Public Choice 64, 21–41 January
Saari D. G. 2001 Decisions and Elections, Explaining the Unexpected. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge
Satterthwaite M. A. 1975 Strategy-Proofness and Arrow’s Conditions: Existence and Correspondence Theorems for Voting Procedures and Social Welfare Functions. Journal of Economic Theory 10, 187–217 April
Taylor, A., Conrad B. P. and S. J. Brams: 2006, Voting and Social Choice. In For All Practical Purposes, Mathematical Literacy in Today’s World, 7th Edition (W.H. Freeman and Co., New York)
U.S. Census: Dec. 28, 2000, www.census.gov/population/cen2000/tab04.txt
Veto in California on Electoral College: Oct. 3, 2006, New York Times (www.nyt.com)
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Robert Easley for pointing out several of the examples in the fifth section and the referees for their helpful comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
David Hartvigsen is a professor in the Management Department of the Mendoza College of Business at the University of Notre Dame. He has a Ph.D. in Mathematics from Carnegie Mellon University and his research is in the areas of Operations Research, Optimization, and Algorithms.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hartvigsen, D. The Manipulation of Voting Systems. J Bus Ethics 80, 13–21 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9438-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9438-9