Abstract
Of Frey’s ideas about expanding the scope of direct democracy we focus on the problems related to agenda formation, graded votes, random devices in elections and the majority principle. Hopefully these points will be addressed in further development of those ideas.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The rule was applied to the assigning of seats to the member states of the Union, not to attaching weights to ballots as in Frey’s proposal.
References
Banzhaf, J. F., III. (1965). Weighted voting doesn’t work. Rutgers Law Review, 19, 317–343.
Coughlin, P. (1992). Probabilistic voting theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Felsenthal, D. S., & Machover, M. (1998). The measurement of voting power. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Holler, M. J., & Nurmi, H. (Eds.). (2013). Power, voting, and voting power: 30 years after. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer.
Intriligator, M. D. (1973). Probabilistic model of social choice. Review of Economic Studies, 40, 553–567.
Nurmi, H. (1987). Comparing voting systems. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Tangian, A. (2014). Mathematical theory of democracy. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The author thanks the editors for comments on an earlier version of this note.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nurmi, H. Reforming Democracy: Comment on “Proposals for a Democracy of the Future” by Bruno Frey. Homo Oecon 34, 201–205 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41412-017-0043-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41412-017-0043-6