Advertisement

Experiments in Political Science: The Case of the Voting Rules

  • Adrian Miroiu
Chapter
Part of the The Philosophy of Science in a European Perspective book series (PSEP, volume 3)

Abstract

Nearly two centuries ago, in his essay On the Definition of Political Economy; and on the Method of Investigation Proper to It, John Stuart Mill developed the view that in moral sciences the only certain or scientific mode of investigation is the a priori method, or that of “abstract speculation”. The following quotation concentrates his main argument:

There is a property common to almost all the moral sciences, and by which they are distinguished from many of the physical; this is, that it is seldom in our power to make experiments in them. … We cannot try forms of government and systems of national policy on a diminutive scale in our laboratories, shaping our experiments as we think they may most conduce to the advancement of knowledge. We therefore study nature under circumstances of great disadvantage in these sciences; being confined to the limited number of experiments which take place (if we may so speak) of their own accord, without any preparation or management of ours; in circumstances, moreover, of great complexity, and never perfectly known to us; and with the far greater part of the processes concealed from our observation.1

Keywords

Social Choice Vote Rule Moral Science Strategic Vote Approval Vote 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Kenneth Joseph Arrow, Social Choice and Individual Values, New York: Wiley 1951.Google Scholar
  2. André Blais, Jean-François Laslier, Annie Laurent, Nicolas Sauger, and Karine Van der Straeten, “One Round versus Two Round Elections: An Experimental Study”, in: French Politics, 5, 2007, pp. 278–286.Google Scholar
  3. David A. Bositis and Douglas Steinel, “A Synoptic History and Typology of Experimental Research in Political Science”, in: Political Behavior, 9, 1987, pp. 263–284.Google Scholar
  4. William P. Bottom, Ronald A. King and Larry Handlin, “Miller, G. J., Institutional Modifications of Majority Rule”, in: Vernon L. Smith, Charles R. Plott (Eds.), Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Amsterdam: North-Holland 2008, pp. 857–871.Google Scholar
  5. Gary W. Cox, Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral Systems, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1997.Google Scholar
  6. Maurice Duverger, Les partis politiques, Paris: Armand Colin 1951.Google Scholar
  7. Peter C. Fishburn, “Axioms for Approval Voting: Direct Proof ”, in: Journal of Economic Theory, 19, 1978, pp. 180–185.Google Scholar
  8. Wenceslao J. Gonzalez, “The Role of Experiments in the Social Sciences: the Case of Economics”, in: Theo Kuipers (Ed.), Handbook of the Philosophy of Science: General Philosophy of Science - Focal Issues, Amsterdam: Elsevier 2007, pp. 275–301.Google Scholar
  9. Robert E. Goodin and Christian List, “A Conditional Defense of Plurality Rule: Generalizing May’s Theorem in a Restricted Informational Environment”, in: American Journal of Political Science, 50, 4, 2006, pp. 940–949.Google Scholar
  10. Donald P. Green and Ian Shapiro, Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science, New Haven: Yale University Press 1994.Google Scholar
  11. James Konow, “Which Is the Fairest One of All? A Positive Analysis of Justice Theories”, in: Journal of Economic Literature, 41, 4, 2003, pp. 1188–1239.Google Scholar
  12. Jean-François Laslier and M. Remzi Sanver (Eds.), Handbook on Approval Voting, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag 2010.Google Scholar
  13. Jean-François Laslier, “In Silico Voting Experiments”, in: Jean-François Laslier and M. Remzi Sanver (Eds.), Handbook on Approval Voting, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag 2010, pp. 311–335.Google Scholar
  14. Jean-François Laslier, “Laboratory Experiments on Approval Voting”, in: Jean-François Laslier and M. Remzi Sanver (Eds.), Handbook on Approval Voting, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag 2010, pp. 339–356.Google Scholar
  15. Kenneth O. May, “A Set of Independent, Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Simple Majoritary Decision”, in: Econometrica, 20, 1952, pp. 680–684.Google Scholar
  16. John C. McCabe-Dansted and Arkadii Slinko, “Exploratory Analysis of Similarities between Social Choice Rules”, in: Group Decision and Negotiation, 15, 2006, pp. 77–107.Google Scholar
  17. John Stuart Mill, (1874). Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy, Second Edition, Batoche Books, Kitchener, 2000. (Second Edition London, Longmans, Green, Reader, And Dyer.)Google Scholar
  18. Elinor Ostrom, “Coping with the Tragedy of the Commons”, in: Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 1999, pp. 493–535.Google Scholar
  19. Elinor Ostrom, “The Value-Added of Laboratory Experiments for the Study of Institutions and Common-Pool Resources”, in: Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 61, 2006, pp. 149–163.Google Scholar
  20. Charles R. Plott, “Will Economics Become an Experimental Science?”, in: Southern Economic Journal, 57, 1991, pp. 901–919.Google Scholar
  21. William H. Riker, “The Two-Party System and Duverger’s Law: An Essay on the History of Political Science”, in: American Political Science Review, 76, 1982, pp. 753–766.Google Scholar
  22. Thomas Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1960.Google Scholar
  23. Vernon L. Smith, “Experimental Economics: Induced Value Theory”, in: The American Economic Review, 66, 2, 1976, pp. 274–279.Google Scholar
  24. Vernon L. Smith, “Microeconomic Systems as an Experimental Science”, in: American Economic Review, 72, 1982, pp. 923–955.Google Scholar
  25. Vernon L. Smith, “Experimental Economics: Reply”, in: The American Economic Review, 75, 1, 1985, pp. 265–272.Google Scholar
  26. Vernon L. Smith, “Theory, Experiment and Economics”, in: The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3, 1, 1989, pp. 151–169.Google Scholar
  27. Vernon L. Smith, “Economics in the Laboratory”, in: The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8, 1, 1994, pp. 113–131.Google Scholar
  28. Vernon L. Smith, Rationality in Economics. Constructivist and Ecological Forms, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2008.Google Scholar
  29. H. Peyton Young, “An Axiomatization of Borda’s Rule”, in: Journal of Economic Theory, 9, 1974, pp. 43–52.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Political Science DepartmentNational School of Political Studies and Public AdministrationBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations