Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Bargaining and voting

  • Published:
Public Choice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Government by majority rule voting is a mixture of voting and bargaining. Bargaining among people with moderately different objectives is indispensable for the passage of laws and the formation of public policy. Little of the nation’s business could be transacted without an ability on the part of the legislators and members of political parties to strike bargains, but that same ability to strike bargains makes possible the exploitation of minorities by majorities which, beyond some limit, destroys democratic government. Rules and customs are designed to foster bargaining in the one context and to thwart bargaining in the other.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aristotle (1946). The politics of aristotle. Oxford: Clarendon Press (edited and translated by Ernest Barker).

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, D., & Frerejohn, J. (1989). Bargaining in legislatures. American Political Science Review, 1181–1206.

  • Besley, T., & Coate, S. (1997). An economic model of representative democracy. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 65–95.

  • Black, D. (1948). On the rationale of group decision making. Journal of Political Economy.

  • Black, D., Newing, R.A. (1958). The theory of committee and elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chua, A. (2003). World on fire: how exporting free market democracy breeds ethnic hatred and global instability. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, J. (2005). Democracy, a history. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, R. (1985). Takings: private property and the power of eminent domain. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farhana, H., & Tse, A. (2009). Comparing the house and senate health care proposals. New York Times, Dec. 19.

  • Gordon, S. (1999). Controlling the state: constitutionalism from ancient athens to today. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacker, A. (Ed.) (1964). The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison. New York: Washington Square Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiewiet, D., & McCubbins, M. (1991). The logic of delegation: congressional parties and the appropriations process. Chicago: UNiversity of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirchgassner, G. (2000). Probabilistic voting and equilibrium: an impossibility result. Public Choice, 35–48.

  • Mann, M. (2005). The dark side of democracy (p. 2005). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, D. (2003). Public Choice III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, P. (1965). The theory of exchange. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, M., & Rubinstein, A. (1990). Bargaining and markets. San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, M., & Slivinski, A. (1996). A model of political competition with citizen-candidates. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 85–114.

  • Rabushka, A., & Shepsle, K. (1972). Politics in plural societies: a theory of democratic instability. Bellevue: Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riker, W. (1980a). Implications from the disequilibrium of majority rule for the study of institutions. American Political Science Review, 432–446.

  • Riker, W. (1980b). Liberalism versus populism. New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riker, W. (1982). The two-party system and Duverger’s law: an essay on the history of political science. American Political Science Review, 753–766.

  • Shepsle, K., & Weinghast, B. (1981). Structure-induced equilibrium and legislative choice. Public Choice, 503–519.

  • Shepsle, K., & Weinghast, B. (1987). The institutional foundations of committee power. American Political Science Review, 86–108.

  • Tullock, G. (1981). The general irrelevance of the general impossibility theorem. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 256–270.

  • Tilly, C. (2007). Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Usher, D. (1981). The economic prerequisite to democracy. Oxford: Blackwell Sci.

    Google Scholar 

  • Usher, D. (1995). The Significance of the probabilistic voting theorem. Canadian Journal of Economics, 433–445.

  • Usher, D. (2005). Assessing the citizen-candidate model. Public Choice, 43–65.

  • Usher, D. (November, 2010). Bargaining unexplained. Public Choice.

  • Woodhouse, A. S. P. (Ed.) (1974). Puritanism and Liberty: being the army debates (1647-9). London: Dent.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dan Usher.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Usher, D. Bargaining and voting. Public Choice 151, 739–755 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-011-9768-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-011-9768-0

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation