Public Choice

, Volume 144, Issue 1–2, pp 119–131 | Cite as

The Marquis de Condorcet goes to Bern

Article

Abstract

‘Condorcet cycles’ (or ‘paradoxes of cyclical majorities’) are an empirically rare phenomenon. A referendum in the Swiss canton of Bern on 28 November 2004 presents a rare occurrence. This study presents a new multi-option referendum procedure that makes Condorcet cycles visible, and it argues that in this case, the paradox might have resulted from strategic voting patterns.

Keywords

Condorcet cycle Strategic voting Referendum Swiss cantons 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andrews, J. T. (2002). Majorities fail. The Russian Parliament, 1990–1993. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Black, D. (1958). The theory of committees and elections. Boston: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  3. Brams, S. J., Kilgour, D. M., & Zwicker, W. S. (1997). Voting on referenda: the separability problem and possible solutions. Electoral Studies, 16(3), 359–377. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brams, S. J., Kilgour, D. M., & Zwicker, W. S. (1998). The paradox of multiple elections. Social Choice and Welfare, 15, 211–236. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chamberlin, J. R., Cohen, J. L., & Coombs, C. H. (1984). Social choice observed: five presidential elections of the American Psychological Association. Journal of Politics, 46(2), 479–502. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Feld, S. L., & Grofman, B. (1988). Ideological consistency as a collective phenomenon. American Political Science Review, 82(3), 773–788. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Feld, S. L., & Grofman, B. (1992). Who’s afraid of the big bad cycle? Evidence from 36 elections. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 4(2), 231–237. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gaubatz, K. T. (1995). Intervention and intransitivity: Public opinion, social choice, and the use of military force abroad. World Politics, 47, 534–554. Google Scholar
  9. Gehrlein, W. V. (2006). Condorcet’s paradox. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
  10. Gehrlein, W. V., & Fishburn, P. C. (1976). Condorcet paradox and anonymous preference profiles. Public Choice, 26, 1–18. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Green, D. P., & Shapiro, I. (1994). Pathologies of rational choice theory. A critique of applications in political science. New Haven: Yale University Press. Google Scholar
  12. Grofman, B. (2004). Reflections on public choice. Public Choice, 118(1), 31–51. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grosser Rat des Kantons Bern (2004). 28. November 2004, Kantonale Volksabstimmung, Botschaft des Grossen Rates des Kantons Bern. Bern: Kanton Bern. Google Scholar
  14. Higley, J., & McAllister, I. (2002). Elite division and voter confusion: Australia’s republic referendum in 1999. European Journal of Political Research, 41, 845–861. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jenkins, J. A., & Munger, M. C. (2003). Investigating the incidence of killer amendments in congress. Journal of Politics, 65, 498–517. Google Scholar
  16. Jones, B., Radcliff, B., Taber, C., & Timpone, R. (1995). Condorcet winners an the paradox of voting: probability calculations for weak preference orders. American Political Science Review, 89(1), 845–861. Google Scholar
  17. Kurrild-Klitgaard, P. (2001). An empirical example of the Condorcet paradox of voting in a large electorate. Public Choice 107(1–2), 135–145. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kurrild-Klitgaard, P. (2008). Voting paradoxes under proportional representation: evidence from eight Danish elections. Scandinavian Political Studies, 31(3), 242–267. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lagerspetz, E. (1997). Social choice in the real World II: cyclical preferences and strategic voting in the Finnish presidential elections. Scandinavian Political Studies, 20(1), 53–67. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Linder, W. (1999). Schweizerische Demokratie. Institutionen, Prozesse, Perspektiven. Bern: Haupt. Google Scholar
  21. Lutz, G., & Strohmann, D. (1998). Wahl- und Abstimmungsrecht in den Kantonen. Bern: Haupt. Google Scholar
  22. Mackie, G. (2003). Democracy defended. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nurmi, H. (1998). Voting paradoxes and referenda. Social Choice and Welfare, 15, 333–350. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nurmi, H. (1999). Voting paradoxes and how to deal with them. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
  25. Regenwetter, M., Grofman, B., Marley, A. A. J., & Tsetlin, I. (2006). Behavioral social choice. Probabilistic models, statistical inference, and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  26. Riker, W. H. (1958). The paradox of voting and congressional rules for voting on amendments. American Political Science Review, 52(2), 349–366. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Riker, W. H. (1982). Liberalism against populism. San Francisco: Freeman. Google Scholar
  28. Riker, W. H. (1986). The art of political manipulation. New Haven: Yale University Press. Google Scholar
  29. Saari, D. G. (2001). Decisions and elections. Explaining the unexpected. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  30. Sen, A. K. (1970). Collective choice and social welfare. San Francisco: Holden-Day. Google Scholar
  31. Senti, M. (1998). Strategisches Abstimmungsverhalten in legislativen Entscheidungsprozessen: Ein Fallbeispiel. Swiss Political Science Review, 4(2), 1–24. Google Scholar
  32. Shafir, E. B., Osherson, D. N., & Smith, E. E. (1989). An advantage model of choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2, 1–23. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shepsle, K. A. (1979). Institutional arrangements and equilibrium in multidimensional voting models. American Journal of Political Science, 23, 27–60. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tullock, G. (1981). Why so much stability? Public Choice, 37(2), 189–202. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Van Deemen, A. (1999). The probability of the paradox of voting for weak preference orderings. Social Choice and Welfare, 16(2), 171–182. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Van Deemen, A., & Vergunst, N. P. (1998). Empirical evidence of paradoxes of voting in Dutch elections. Public Choice, 97(3), 475–490. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wyler, S. (2004). Ein Zufallsresultat. Der Bund, 29 November, 37. Google Scholar
  38. Wyler, S. (2005). Das Volk und der Volksvorschlag. Der Bund, 23 May, 25. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Comparative and International StudiesUniversität ZürichZürichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations