Empirical evidence of paradoxes of voting in Dutch elections

Public Choice

Volumn 97, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 475-490

  Van Deemen, Ad M A ^a   Vergunst, Noël P ^b  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

^b VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0032262396     PISSN: 00485829     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1005098111179     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Arrow, K.J. (1963). Social choice and individual values. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Second Edition.
2. Black, D. (1958). The theory of committees and elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Blydenburgh, J.C. (1971). The closed rule and the paradox of voting. The Journal of Politics 33: 57-71.
4. Campbell, C. and Tullock, G. (1965). A measure of the importance of cyclical majorities. Economic Journal 75: 853-857.
5. Chamberlin, J.R., Cohen, J.L. and Coombs, C.H. (1984). Social choice observed: Five presidential elections of the American Psychological Association. The Journal of Politics 46: 479-502.
6. Condorcet, M. (1785). Essai sur l'application de l'analyse à la probabilité des decisions rendues à la pluralité de voix. Paris.
7. Condorcet, M. (1789). Sur la forme des elections. Paris.
8. Dahl, R. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.
9. DeMeyer, F. and Plott, C. (1970). The probability of a cyclical majority. Econometrica 38: 345-354.
10. Feld, S. and Grofman, B. (1992). Who's afraid of the Big Bad Cycle? Evidence from 36 elections. Journal of Theoretical Politics 4: 231-237.
11. Garman, M.B. and Kamien, M.I. (1968). The paradox of voting: Probability calculations. Behavioral Science 13: 306-316.
12. Gehrlein, W.V. (1983). Condorcet's paradox. Theory and Decision 15: 161-197.
13. Gehrlein, W. and Fishburn, P. (1976). The probability of the paradox of voting: A computable solution. Journal of Economic Theory 12: 14-25.
14. Jamison, D.T. (1975). The probability of intransitive majority rule: An empirical study. Public Choice 23: 87-94.
15. Jones, B., Radcliff, B., Taber, C. and Timpone, R. (1995). Condorcet winners and the paradox of voting: Probability calculations for weak preferences orders. American Political Science Review 89: 137-147.
16. Klahr, D. (1966). A computer simulation of the paradox of voting. The American Political Science Review 60: 384-390.
17. May, R.M. (1971). Some mathematical remarks on the paradox of voting. Behavioral Science 16: 143-151.
18. Niemi, R.G. (1970). The occurrence of the paradox of voting in university elections. Public Choice 91-100.
19. Niemi, R.G. and Weisberg, H.F. (1968). A mathematical solution for the probability of the paradox of voting. Behavioral Science 13: 317-323.
20. Niemi, R.G. and Wright, J.R. (1987). Voting cycles and the structure of individual preferences. Social Choice and Welfare 4: 173-183.
21. Radcliff, B. (1994). Collective preferences in presidential elections. Electoral Studies 13: 50-57.
22. Riker, W.H. (1965). Arrow's Theorem and some examples of the paradox of voting. In J.M. Claunch (Ed.), Mathematical applications in political science, 41-60. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press.
23. Riker, W.H. (1982). Liberalism against populism. San Francisco: Freeman.
24. Sen, A. (1966). A possibility theorem on majority decisions. Econometrica 34: 491-499.
25. Tännsjö, T. (1992). Populist democracy: A defence. London: Routledge.
26. Tullock, G. (1981). Why so much stability? Public Choice 37: 189-202.
27. Van Deemen, A.M.A. (1993). Paradoxes of voting in list systems of proportional representation. Electoral Studies 12: 234-241.
28. Vergunst, N.P. (1995). De empirische bruikbaarheid van de stemparadox. Master thesis. Nijmegen: Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen (In Dutch).
29. Vergunst, N.P. (1996). Besluitvorming over kerncentrale Borssele: Een analyse van de stemparadox in de Nederlandse politiek. Acta Politica 31: 209-228.