Advertisement

Focusing on Campaigns

  • Dominik Klein
  • Eric Pacuit
Chapter
Part of the Outstanding Contributions to Logic book series (OCTR, volume 11)

Abstract

One of the important lessons to take away from Rohit Parikh’s impressive body of work is that logicians and computer scientists have much to gain by focusing their attention on the intricacies of political campaigns. Drawing on recent work developing a theory of expressive voting, we study the dynamics of voters’ opinions during an election. In this paper, we develop a model in which the relative importance of the different issues that concern a voter may change either in response to candidates’ statements during a campaign or due to unforeseen events. We study how changes in a voter?s attention to the issues influence voting behavior under voting systems such as plurality rule and approval voting. We argue that it can be worthwhile for candidates to reshape public focus, but that doing so can be a complex and risky activity.

Keywords

Decision theory Voting systems Expressive voting 

References

  1. Alchourrón, C. E., Gärdenfors, P., & Makinson, D. (1985). On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50(2), 510–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aragones, E., Gilboa, I., & Weiss, A. (2011). Making statements and approval voting. Voting Theory and Decission, 71, 461–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balinski, M., & Laraki, R. (2010). Majority judgment: Measuring, ranking, and electing. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brams, S. J., & Fishburn, P. C. (1983). Approval voting. Boston: Birkhauser.Google Scholar
  5. Brennan, G., & Lomasky, L. (1993). Democracy and decision—The pure theory of electoral choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dean, W., & Parikh, R. (2011). The logic of campaigning. In Logic and its applications (pp. 38–49). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Gilboa, I., & Vielle, N. (2004). Majority vote following a debate. Social Choice and Welfare, 23, 115–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Klein, D., & Pacuit, E. (2013). Expressive voting: Modeling a voter’s decision to vote. Manuscript, 2013.Google Scholar
  9. Pacuit, E., & Parikh, R. (2006). Social interaction, knowledge, and social software. In D. Goldin, S. Smolka, & P. Wegner (Eds.), Interactive computation (pp. 441–461). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Parikh, R. (1985). The logic of games and its applications. In M. Karplnski & J. van Leeuwen (Eds.), Topics in the theory of computation selected papers of the international conference on ‘foundations of computation theory’ (Vol. 102, pp. 111–139). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  11. Parikh, R. (1999). Beliefs, belief revision, and splitting languages. In L. Moss, J. Ginzburg, & M. de Rijke (Eds.), Logic, language and computation (Vol. 2, pp. 266–278). Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
  12. Parikh, R. (2001). Language as social software. In Future pasts: The analytic tradition in twentieth century philosophy, pp. 339–350.Google Scholar
  13. Parikh, R. (2002). Social software. Synthese, 132(3), 187–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Poundstone, W. (2008). Gaming the vote. New York: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
  15. Smith, W. D. (2014). Rangevoting.org.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tilburg Institute for Logic and the Philosophy of ScienceTilburgThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations