Reinterpreting p: A New Theory of How Individual Votes Contribute to Electoral Outcomes

IF 1.3 Q1 LAW Election Law Journal Pub Date : 2015-06-08 DOI:10.1089/elj.2014.0263
S. PoupkoEliezer
{"title":"Reinterpreting p: A New Theory of How Individual Votes Contribute to Electoral Outcomes","authors":"S. PoupkoEliezer","doi":"10.1089/elj.2014.0263","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In the rational choice calculus of voting, p represents the probability that an individual vote will have an instrumental effect on the outcome of an election. The well-known paradox of turnout arises from the fact that a single vote has virtually no chance of being pivotal in any large election, even when the race is extremely close. This article criticizes the conventional interpretation of p, suggesting an arguably more plausible and normatively superior alternative to pivotal voting theory. The theory of efficacious set causation, based on the work of Richard Tuck, provides an instrumentally rational justification for individuals to participate in large elections, thus resolving the long-standing paradox of turnout. The article analyzes Tuck's theory and elaborates upon it, offering a formal model of how this novel interpretation of p could be calculated in actual elections. Highlighting how institutions of election law and administration reflect basic conceptions of democratic theory, the ar...","PeriodicalId":45644,"journal":{"name":"Election Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2015-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1089/elj.2014.0263","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Election Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/elj.2014.0263","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract In the rational choice calculus of voting, p represents the probability that an individual vote will have an instrumental effect on the outcome of an election. The well-known paradox of turnout arises from the fact that a single vote has virtually no chance of being pivotal in any large election, even when the race is extremely close. This article criticizes the conventional interpretation of p, suggesting an arguably more plausible and normatively superior alternative to pivotal voting theory. The theory of efficacious set causation, based on the work of Richard Tuck, provides an instrumentally rational justification for individuals to participate in large elections, thus resolving the long-standing paradox of turnout. The article analyzes Tuck's theory and elaborates upon it, offering a formal model of how this novel interpretation of p could be calculated in actual elections. Highlighting how institutions of election law and administration reflect basic conceptions of democratic theory, the ar...
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重新诠释:个人选票如何影响选举结果的新理论
在投票的理性选择演算中,p表示个人投票对选举结果产生工具性影响的概率。众所周知的投票率悖论源于这样一个事实,即在任何大型选举中,即使在竞争非常接近的情况下,一张选票几乎没有机会成为关键。本文批评了对p的传统解释,提出了一个更合理、更规范的替代关键投票理论。基于理查德•塔克(Richard Tuck)工作的有效集合因果关系理论,为个人参与大型选举提供了工具理性的理由,从而解决了长期存在的投票率悖论。本文分析了塔克的理论,并对其进行了详细阐述,提供了一个正式的模型,说明如何在实际选举中计算这种对p的新颖解释。强调选举法和行政机构如何反映民主理论的基本概念,
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
16.70%
发文量
13
期刊最新文献
Dropbox Allocation and Use Among Georgia Voters in the 2020 Election Voter Information Search and Ranked Choice Voting Can Election Administration Overcome the Effects of Restrictive State Voting Laws? Assessing Precinct Consolidation Strategies Through Simulation Optimization Does the Framing of Information Regarding Foreign Election Interference Matter? Evidence from a Survey Experiment in Canada
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1