Are Referendums and Parliamentary Elections Reconcilable? The Implications of Three Voting Paradoxes

IF 0.9 Q3 ETHICS Moral Philosophy and Politics Pub Date : 2019-10-01 DOI:10.1515/mopp-2018-0055
S. Bloks
{"title":"Are Referendums and Parliamentary Elections Reconcilable? The Implications of Three Voting Paradoxes","authors":"S. Bloks","doi":"10.1515/mopp-2018-0055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In representative democracies, referendum voting and parliamentary elections provide two fundamentally different methods for determining the majority opinion. We use three mathematical paradoxes – so-called majority voting paradoxes – to show that referendum voting can reverse the outcome of a parliamentary election, even if the same group of voters have expressed the same preferences on the issues considered in the referendums and the parliamentary election. This insight about the systemic contrarieties between referendum voting and parliamentary elections sheds a new light on the debate about the supplementary value of referendums in representative democracies. Using this insight, we will suggest legal conditions for the implementation of referendums in representative democracies that can pre-empt the conflict between the two methods for determining the majority opinion.","PeriodicalId":37108,"journal":{"name":"Moral Philosophy and Politics","volume":"22 1","pages":"281 - 311"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Moral Philosophy and Politics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/mopp-2018-0055","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract In representative democracies, referendum voting and parliamentary elections provide two fundamentally different methods for determining the majority opinion. We use three mathematical paradoxes – so-called majority voting paradoxes – to show that referendum voting can reverse the outcome of a parliamentary election, even if the same group of voters have expressed the same preferences on the issues considered in the referendums and the parliamentary election. This insight about the systemic contrarieties between referendum voting and parliamentary elections sheds a new light on the debate about the supplementary value of referendums in representative democracies. Using this insight, we will suggest legal conditions for the implementation of referendums in representative democracies that can pre-empt the conflict between the two methods for determining the majority opinion.
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
全民公决和议会选举可以调和吗?三个投票悖论的含义
在代议制民主国家,公民投票和议会选举为确定多数人的意见提供了两种根本不同的方法。我们使用了三个数学上的悖论——所谓的多数投票悖论——来证明公民投票可以扭转议会选举的结果,即使同一群选民对公民投票和议会选举中考虑的问题表达了相同的偏好。这种对全民公决投票和议会选举之间系统性矛盾的洞察,为关于代议制民主中全民公决的补充价值的辩论提供了新的视角。利用这一见解,我们将提出在代议制民主国家实施公民投票的法律条件,这些条件可以预先防止确定多数意见的两种方法之间的冲突。
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
Moral Philosophy and Politics
Moral Philosophy and Politics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊最新文献
Why Military Conditioning Violates the Human Dignity of Soldiers Moral Reasoning in the Climate Crisis: A Personal Guide Applying Different Concepts and Conceptions of Legitimacy to the International Level: Service, Free Group Agents, and Autonomy Hybrid Ethical Theory and Cohen’s Critique of Rawls’s Egalitarian Liberalism Ideal Theory and Real Politics: The Politics in Political Liberalism
×
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