Search

We prove that the core for Borda count is empty in many cases in which the majority core is non-empty. We then compare Borda count and majority rule in a forward agenda using a two-dimensional spatial voting model with minimal-intelligence agents who vote sincerely and propose randomly. The analysis allows us to compare Borda count and majority rule in a dynamic setting and to show which voting rule is more capable of attaining Pareto-optimal policies and utilitarian ideals under those conditions. We find that Borda count moves policies in the rough vicinity of the Copeland winner and typically outperforms majority rule on both criteria in twenty rounds or less. Majority rule often outperforms Borda count in 1000 rounds. This provides a modest step in the application of new voting rules to committees. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The success of any constitutional convention can depend on its provisions for power sharing. We test three claims about the effects of the Great Compromise, a power sharing agreement, on the Constitutional Convention of 1787. First, we find that the convention was not more likely to pass proposals to strengthen the national government after the compromise than before, contrary to claims made by historians. Two small states increased their support, but other states did not. Second, Southern states (and large states) were more likely to support weakening the national government after the compromise. Third, large states were more likely to support proposals to strengthen the power of the House relative to the Senate after the compromise, and small states were more likely to resist. However, the opposite was not true for strengthening the Senate. Our results suggest a new narrative about the effects of Great Compromise on the Constitutional Convention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is widely held that in the absence of transaction costs unanimity rule is more effective at producing Pareto improvements and Pareto optimal outcomes than majority rule. We compare unanimity rule and majority rule in their ability to adhere to the Pareto criterion and to select Pareto-optimal alternatives using a single-dimensional spatial voting model without rational proposals. This produces two interesting results. First, if proposals are random, then majority rule is almost always more adept at selecting Pareto-optimal alternatives than unanimity rule. Second, if individuals propose their ideal points, then majority rule selects Pareto-optimal outcomes at least as well as unanimity rule. These results contrast with equilibrium analyses, which typically show that unanimity rule is the best voting procedure for maintaining Pareto optimality. (JEL D7, C61), I. INTRODUCTION Voting theory is important for understanding economics as well as politics. International organizations vote on trade regulations, legislatures vote on minimum wage, and governments vote on the provision [...]