The probability of being decisive

Public Choice

Volumn 101, Issue 3-4, 1999, Pages 267-283

  Fischer, A J ^a,b,c  

^a ST GEORGE'S UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE   (Australia)

^c TRINITY COLLEGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0033463825     PISSN: 00485829     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/a:1018671000966     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Aldrich, J.H. (1993). Rational choice and turnout. American Journal of Political Science 37: 246-278.
2. Banzhaf, J. (1968) One man: 3.312 votes. A mathematical analysis of the Electoral College. Villanova Law Review 13: 304-332.
3. Barzel, Y. and Silberberg, E. (1973). Is the act of voting rational? Public Choice 16: 51-58.
4. Beck, N. (1974). A note on the probability of a tied election. Public Choice 23: 75-80.
5. Berg, S. (1990). The probability of casting a decisive vote: The effects of a caucus. Public Choice 64: 73-92.
6. Brennan, H.G. and Lomasky, L. (1993). Democracy and decision: The pure theory of electoral preference. Cambridge: CUP
7. Chamberlain, G. and Rothschild, M. (1981). The probability of casting a decisive vote. Journal of Economic Theory 25: 152-162.
8. Fain, J. and Dworkin, J.B. (1993). Determinants of voter participation: Some simulation results. Public Choice 77: 823-834.
9. Fischer, A.J. (1996). The probability of a tied vote for the U.S. Presidency. Mimeo. Paper presented to the Public Choice Society/Economic Science Association Conference, Houston, Texas, April.
10. Gelman, A., King, G. and Boscardin, W.J. (1997). Estimating the probability of events that have never occurred: When does your vote matter? Unpublished manuscript.
11. Good, I.J. and Mayer, L.S. (1975). Estimating the efficacy of a vote. Behavioral Science 20: 25-33.
12. Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory. Econometrica 27: 263-291.
13. Kau, J.B. and Rubin, P.M. (1976). The Electoral College and the rational vote. Public Choice 27: 101-107.
14. Kirchgassner, G. and Pommerehne, W.W. (1993). Low cost decisions as a challenge to Public Choice. Public Choice 77: 107-116.
15. Kirchgassner, G. and Schimmelpfennig, J. (1992). Closeness counts if it matters for electoral victory: Some empirical results for the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany. Public Choice 73: 283-300.
16. Ledyard, J. (1981). The paradox of voting and candidate competition: A general equilibrium analysis. In G. Horwich and J. Quirk (Eds.), Essays in contemporary fields of Economics. Purdue UP.
17. Ledyard, J. (1984). The pure theory of large two-candidate elections. Public Choice 44: 7-41.
18. Margolis, H. (1977). Probability of a tied election. Public Choice 31: 135-138.
19. Matsusaka, J.G. (1993). Election closeness and voter turnout: Evidence from California ballot propositions. Public Choice 76: 313-334.
20. Matsusaka, J. and Palda, K. (1991). The Downsian voter meets the ecological fallacy. University of Southern California and Fraser Institute.
21. Mueller, D.C. (1987). The voting paradox. In C.K. Rowley (Ed.) Democracy and public choice. Oxford: Blackwell.
22. Mueller, D.C. (1989). Public choice: Second edition. Cambridge: CUP.
23. Owen, G. and Grofman, B. (1984). To vote or not to vote: The paradox of non-voting. Public Choice 42: 311-325.
24. Palfrey, T. and Rosenthal, H. (1983). A strategic calculus of voting. Public Choice 41: 7-54.
25. Palfrey, T. and Rosenthal, H. (1985). Voter participation and strategic uncertainty. American Political Science Review 79: 62-78.
26. Riker, W.H. and Ordeshook, P. (1968). A theory of the calculus of voting. American Political Science Review 62: 25-42.
27. Thompson, F. (1982). Closeness counts in horseshoes and dancing ... and elections. Public Choice 38: 305-316.
28. Tullock, G. (1967). Towards a mathematics of politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.