Compound majority paradoxes and proportional representation

European Journal of Political Economy

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 1997, Pages 443-454

  Nurmi, Hannu ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TURKU   (Finland)

Author keywords

Collective decision making; Majority voting; Voting paradox

Indexed keywords

EID: 0031232263     PISSN: 01762680     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0176-2680(97)00024-4     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Allingham, M.G., 1975. Economic power and values of games. Zeitschrift für Nationalökonomie 35, 293-299.
2. Anscombe, G.E.M., 1976. On frustration of the majority by fulfilment of the majority's will. Analysis 36, 161-168.
3. Banzhaf, J.F., III, 1965. Weighted voting doesn't work: A mathematical analysis, Rutgers Law Review 19, 317-343.
4. Bezembinder, T., Van Acker, P., 1985. The Ostrogorski paradox and its relation to nontransitive choice. Journal of Mathematical Sociology 11, 131-158.
5. Brams, S.J., Kilgour, D.M., Zwicker, W.S., 1993. A new paradox of vote aggregation, 1993 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.
6. Cartwright, N., 1979. Causal laws and effective strategies. Nous 13, 419-437.
7. Cohen, M.R., Nagel, E., 1934. An introduction to logic and scientific method, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
8. Daudt, H., Rae, D., 1978. Social contract and the limits of majority rule, in: Birnbaum, P., Lively, J., Parry, G. (Eds.), Democracy, consensus & social contract, SAGE Publications, London and Beverly Hills.
9. Lagerspetz, E., 1995. Paradoxes and representation, Electoral Studies 15, 83-92.
10. Nowak, S., 1961. Some problems of causal interpretation of statistical relationships. Philosophy of Science 27, 23-38.
11. Nurmi, H., 1988. Discrepancies in the outcomes resulting from different voting schemes. Theory and Decision 25, 193-208.
12. Nurmi, H., 1995a. Voting paradoxes and referenda, Social Choice and Welfare, forthcoming.
13. Nurmi, H., 1995b. Compound majorities, Simpson's paradox and democratic theory, prepared for 10th International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Florence, August 19-25, 1995.
14. Ostrogorski, M., 1903. La démocratie et l'organisation des partis politiques, Calmann-Levy, Paris, 2 vols.
15. Rae, D., Daudt, H., 1976. The Ostrogorski paradox: a peculiarity of compound majority decision. European Journal of Political Research 4, 391-398.
16. Riker, W.H., 1982. Liberalism against populism, W.H. Freeman, San Francisco.
17. Saari, D.G., 1990. Consistency of decision processes. Annals of Operations Research 23, 103-137.
18. Schwartz, T., 1995. The paradox of representation. The Journal of Politics 57, 309-323.
19. Shapley, L.S., Shubik, M., 1954. A method for evaluating the distribution of power in a committee system. American Political Science Review 48, 787-792.
20. Simpson, E.H., 1951. The interpretation of interaction in contingency tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 13, 238-241.
21. Skyrms, B., 1980. Causal necessity, Yale University Press, New Haven.
22. Sober, E., 1984. The nature of selection, MIT Press, Cambridge.
23. Wagner, C., 1983. Anscombe's paradox and the rule of three-fourths. Theory and Decision 15, 303-308.