Empirical social choice: an introduction (original) (raw)
References
Aldrich, J. H. (2004). William H. Riker. In C. K. Rowley & F. Schneider (Eds.), The encyclopedia of public choice (Vol. 2, pp. 321–324). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
Amadae, S. M., & Bueno de Mesquita, B. (1999). The Rochester school: the origins of positive political theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 269–295. Article Google Scholar
Arrow, K. J. (1963). Social choice and individual values (2nd ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press. [1951]. Google Scholar
Black, D. (1948). On the rationale of group decision making. Journal of Political Economy, 56, 23–34. Article Google Scholar
Brams, S. J., & Fishburn, P. C. (1978). Approval voting. American Political Science Review, 72, 831–847. Article Google Scholar
Buchanan, J. M., & Tullock, G. (2004). The calculus of consent: logical foundations of constitutional democracy. In C. K. Rowley (Ed.), The selected works of Gordon Tullock (Vol. 2). Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. [1962]. Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, B., & Shepsle, K. A. (2001). William Harrison Riker, September 22, 1920—June 26, 1993. Biographical Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences, 79, 3–22. Google Scholar
Campbell, C., & Tullock, G. (1965). A measure of the importance of cyclical majorities. Journal of Economics, 75, 853–857. Article Google Scholar
DeMeyer, F., & Plott, C. R. (1970). The probability of a cyclical majority. Econometrica, 38, 345–354. Article Google Scholar
Dobra, J. L., & Tullock, G. (1981). An approach to empirical measures of voting paradoxes. Public Choice, 36, 193–194. Article Google Scholar
Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper Collins. Google Scholar
Dyer, J. S., & Miles, R. E. (1976). An actual application of collective choice theory to the selection of trajectories for the Mariner Jupiter/Saturn 1977 project. Operations Research, 24, 220–244. Article Google Scholar
Garman, M. B., & Kamien, M. I. (1968). The paradox of voting: probability calculations. Behavioral Science, 13, 306–316. Article Google Scholar
Gehrlein, W. V. (1983). Condorcet’s paradox. Theory and Decision, 15, 161–197. Article Google Scholar
Gehrlein, W. V. (2006). Condorcet’s paradox. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
Gehrlein, W. V., & Fishburn, P. C. (1976). The probability of the paradox of voting: a computable solution. Journal of Economic Theory, 12, 14–25. Article Google Scholar
Gehrlein, W. V., & Lepelley, D. (2011). Voting paradoxes and group coherence. Berlin: Springer. Book Google Scholar
Gibbard, A. (1973). Manipulation of voting schemes. Econometrica, 41, 587–601. Article Google Scholar
Goodin, R. E., & Klingemann, H.-D. (1996). Political science: the discipline. In R. E. Goodin & H.-D. Klingemann (Eds.), A new handbook of political science (pp. 3–49). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
Green, D. P., & Shapiro, I. (1994). Pathologies of rational choice: a critique of applications in political science. New Haven: Yale University Press. Google Scholar
Hamilton, A., Jay, J., & Madison, J. (2001). In G. W. Carey & J. McClellan (Eds.), The Federalist (Gideon ed.). Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. [1787]. Google Scholar
Härd, S. (2000). Arbitrary democracy. In N. Berggren, N. Karlson, & J. Nergelius (Eds.), Why constitutions matter (pp. 137–166). Stockholm: City University Press. Google Scholar
Jamison, D. T. (1975). The probability of intransitive majority rule: an empirical study. Public Choice, 23, 87–94. Article Google Scholar
Jones, B., Radcliff, B., Taber, C. S., & Timpone, R. J. (1995). Condorcet winners and the paradox of voting: probability calculations for weak preference orders. American Political Science Review, 89(1), 137–144. Article Google Scholar
Kurrild-Klitgaard, P. (1999). Voting, agenda control and the Clinton impeachment. Paper presented at Danish Public Choice Workshop, 17, 1999, Aarhus. Aarhus: Dept. of Political Science, University of Aarhus.
Kurrild-Klitgaard, P. (2005). Individ, stat og marked: Studier i rationalitet og politik. København: Forlaget Politiske Studier.
Kurrild-Klitgaard, P. (2008). Voting paradoxes under proportional representation: evidence from eight danish elections. Scandinavian Political Studies, 31(3), 242–267. Article Google Scholar
Kurrild-Klitgaard, P. (2013). Election inversions, coalitions and proportional representation: examples of voting paradoxes in danish government formations. Scandinavian Political Studies, 36(2), 121–136. Article Google Scholar
Levine, M. E., & Plott, C. R. (1977). Agenda influence and its implications. Virginia Law Review, 63(4), 561–604. Article Google Scholar
Mackie, G. (2003). Democracy defended. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Book Google Scholar
Malkevitch, J. (1990). Mathematical theory of elections. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 607, 89–97. Article Google Scholar
Maske, K., & Durden, G. (2003). The contributions and impact of Professor William H. Riker. Public Choice, 117, 191–220. Article Google Scholar
McKelvey, R. D. (1976). Intransitivities in multidimensional voting models and some implications for agenda control. Journal of Economic Theory, 12, 472–482. Article Google Scholar
McKelvey, R. D., & Ordeshook, P. C. (1984). The influence of committee procedures on outcomes: some experimental evidence. The Journal of Politics, 46, 182–205. Article Google Scholar
McLean, I. (2002). William H. Riker and the invention of heresthetic(s). British Journal of Political Science, 32, 535–558. Article Google Scholar
McLean, I. (2008). In Riker’s footsteps. British Journal of Political Science, 39, 195–210. Article Google Scholar
McLean, I. & Hewitt, F. (Eds.) (1994). Condorcet: foundations of social choice and political theory. Aldershot: Edward Elgar. Google Scholar
McLean, I. & Urken, A. B. (Eds.) (1995). Classics of social choice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Google Scholar
Miller, N. R. (2011). Why the Electoral College is good for political science (and public choice). Public Choice, 150, 1–25. Article Google Scholar
Miller, N. R. (2012). Election inversions by the U.S. Electoral College. In D. S. Felsenthal & M. Machover (Eds.), Electoral systems: paradoxes, assumptions and procedures. Studies in choice and welfare (pp. 93–127). Berlin: Springer. Chapter Google Scholar
Miller, N. R. (2013). Election inversions under proportional representation, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Public Choice Society, New Orleans.
Mitchell, W. C. (1988). Virginia, Rochester and Bloomington: twenty-five years of public choice and political science. Public Choice, 56, 101–119. Article Google Scholar
Mitchell, W. C. (1994). William H. Riker (1921–1993). Public Choice, 78, iii–iv. Article Google Scholar
Mitchell, W. C. (1999). Political science and public choice: 1950-70. Public Choice, 98, 237–249. Article Google Scholar
Mueller, D. C. (2003). Public choice III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Book Google Scholar
Niemi, R. G., & Weisberg, H. F. (1968). A mathematical solution for the probability of the paradox of voting. Behavioral Science, 13, 317–323. Article Google Scholar
Nurmi, H. (1987). Comparing voting systems. Dordrecht: Reidel. Book Google Scholar
Plott, C. R. (1967). A notion of equilibrium and its possibility under majority rule. The American Economic Review, 57, 787–806. Google Scholar
Plott, C. R., & Levine, M. E. (1978). A model of agenda influence on committee decisions. The American Economic Review, 68, 146–160. Google Scholar
Regenwetter, M., Grofman, B., Marley, A. A. J., & Tsetlin, I. M. (2006). Behavioral social choice: probabilistic models, statistical inference, and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Riker, W. H. (1958). The paradox of voting and congressional rules for voting on amendments. American Political Science Review, 52(2), 349–366. Article Google Scholar
Riker, W. H. (1962). The theory of political coalitions. New Haven: Yale University Press. Google Scholar
Riker, W. H. (1964). Federalism: origin, operation, significance. Boston: Little Brown. Google Scholar
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 (pp. 41–60). Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press. Google Scholar
Riker, W. H. (1980). Implications from the disequilibrium of majority rule for the study of institutions. American Political Science Review, 74(2), 432–446. Article Google Scholar
Riker, W. H. (1982). Liberalism against populism: a confrontation between the theory of democracy and the theory of social choice. San Francisco: Freeman. Google Scholar
Riker, W. H. (1984). The heresthetic of constitution-making: the presidency in 1787. American Political Science Review, 78(1), 1–16. Article Google Scholar
Riker, W. H. (1986). The art of political manipulation. New Haven: Yale University Press. Google Scholar
Riker, W. H. (1987). The lessons of 1787. Public Choice, 55(1–2), 5–34. Article Google Scholar
Riker, W. H. (1988). The place of political science in public choice. Public Choice, 37, 247–257. Article Google Scholar
Riker, W. H. (Ed.) (1993). Agenda formation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Google Scholar
Riker, W. H. (1996). The strategy of rhetoric: campaigning for the American constitution. New Haven: Yale University Press. Google Scholar
Saari, D. G. (1994). Basic geometry of voting. Berlin: Springer. Book Google Scholar
Satterthwaite, M. A. (1975). Strategy-proofness and arrow’s conditions: existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions. Journal of Economic Theory, 10, 187–217. Article Google Scholar
Schofield, N. (1978). Instability of simple dynamic games. Review of Economic Studies, 45, 575–594. Article Google Scholar
Shepsle, K. A., & Bonchek, M. S. (1997). Analyzing politics: rationality, behavior, and institutions. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
Shepsle, K. A., & Weingast, B. R. (1981). Structure-induced equilibrium and legislative choice. Public Choice, 37(3), 503–519. Article Google Scholar
Shepsle, K. A., & Weingast, B. R. (2012). Why so much stability? Majority voting, legislative institutions, and Gordon Tullock. Public Choice, 152(1–2), 83–95. Article Google Scholar
Timpone, R. J., & Taber, C. S. (1998). Simulation: analytic and algorithmic analyses of Condorcet’s Paradox - variations on a classical theme. Social Science Computer Review, 16(1), 72–95. Article Google Scholar
Van Deemen, A. M. A., & Vergunst, N. P. (1998). Empirical evidence of paradoxes of voting in Dutch elections. Public Choice, 97(3), 475–490. Article Google Scholar
Wright, S. G., & Riker, W. H. (1989). Plurality and runoff systems and numbers of candidates. Public Choice, 60(2), 155–175. Article Google Scholar