Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing Contestability of Electoral Outcomes

  • Published:
Quality and Quantity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article applies Saari’s geometric methodology to assess how muchdifference the choice of a particular positional voting procedure makeson the election outcomes. The British 2001 parliamentary elections are usedas an illustration of the methodology. The election results as well as MORIinterview data are used to make inferences regarding the possibility ofthe Borda effect. Saari’s geometricrepresentation technique is resorted to in describing all possiblepositional voting outcomes in single-member constituencies where threecandidates are competing. Finally, two basic winning criteria are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Butler, D. & Stokes, D. (1971). Political Change in Britain. Harmondsworth: Penguin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colman, A. & Pountney, I. (1978). Borda’s voting paradox: Theoretical likelihood and electoral occurrences. Behavioral Science 23: 15–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeGrazia, A. (1953). Mathematical derivation of an election system. Isis 44: 42–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C. (1973). The Theory of Social Choice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLean, I. & Urken, A. B. (eds) (1995) Classics of Social Choice. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, P. (2002). The British Parliamentary Constituency Database, 1992–2001.

  • Riker, W. H. (1982) Liberalism against Populism. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saari, D. (1995). Basic Geometry of Voting. Berlin-Heidelberg-New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saari, D. (1999). Explaining all three-alternative voting outcomes. Journal of Economic Theory 87: 313–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saari, D. G. (2001a). Chaotic Elections! A Mathematician Looks at Voting. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saari, D. G. (2001b). Decisions and Elections. Explaining the Unexpected. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabarrok, A. (2001). President Perot or fundamentals of voting theory illustrated with the 1992 election. Public Choice 106: 275–297.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, University of Turku, FIN-20014, Turku, Finland

    Hannu Nurmi & Maria Suojanen

Authors
  1. Hannu Nurmi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria Suojanen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nurmi, H., Suojanen, M. Assessing Contestability of Electoral Outcomes. Qual Quant 38, 719–733 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-004-4756-9

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-004-4756-9

Search

Navigation