Abstract
Contrary to Miller, Farquharson’s agenda trees do omit real parliamentary information. And the assumptions he uses to justify Farquharson’s definition of sincere (or naive) voting justify too little (e.g., he drops maximax) and rule out too much (e.g., non-pre-set agendas and principled sincere voting).
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Farquharson, R. (1969). Theory of voting. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Miller, N. (2010). Agenda trees and sincere voting: a response to Schwartz. Public Choice, 145, xx–xx.
Riker, W. H. (1986). The art of political manipulation. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Schwartz, T. (2008). Parliamentary procedure: principal forms and political effects. Public Choice, 136, 353–377.
Sullivan, T. (1984). Procedural structure. New York: Praeger.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.