通过代表制实施直接民主

IF 0.5 4区 经济学 Q4 ECONOMICS Mathematical Social Sciences Pub Date : 2024-04-06 DOI:10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2024.04.001
Guadalupe Correa-Lopera
{"title":"通过代表制实施直接民主","authors":"Guadalupe Correa-Lopera","doi":"10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2024.04.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Today, several social movements in western democracies argue that traditional representative democracy has failed to adequately represent the will of the “people”, and instead support direct democracy as the only political system to restore the will of the majority. We analyze under what conditions the policy – a vector of decisions on every issue – implemented by the winner of a bipartisan electoral competition coincides with the policy that citizens would choose by means of direct democracy. We find necessary and sufficient conditions for this equivalence to hold, implying that, as long as at least one of them is not fulfilled, a divergence of outcomes between direct and representative democracy arises. The first condition requires that the outcome of majority voting issue-by-issue is the Condorcet winner relative to the voters’ preference profile over the set of policies. The second requires that either that outcome is the preferred policy for at least one of the candidates, or that candidates’ preferred policies differ on every single issue. We reinterpret some findings in the literature in the light of our model and present them as potential reasons why the equivalence between direct and representative democracy may fail.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51118,"journal":{"name":"Mathematical Social Sciences","volume":"129 ","pages":"Pages 85-92"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165489624000404/pdfft?md5=a473f41645fc7bc91cd195e4d3525110&pid=1-s2.0-S0165489624000404-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Implementing direct democracy via representation\",\"authors\":\"Guadalupe Correa-Lopera\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2024.04.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Today, several social movements in western democracies argue that traditional representative democracy has failed to adequately represent the will of the “people”, and instead support direct democracy as the only political system to restore the will of the majority. We analyze under what conditions the policy – a vector of decisions on every issue – implemented by the winner of a bipartisan electoral competition coincides with the policy that citizens would choose by means of direct democracy. We find necessary and sufficient conditions for this equivalence to hold, implying that, as long as at least one of them is not fulfilled, a divergence of outcomes between direct and representative democracy arises. The first condition requires that the outcome of majority voting issue-by-issue is the Condorcet winner relative to the voters’ preference profile over the set of policies. The second requires that either that outcome is the preferred policy for at least one of the candidates, or that candidates’ preferred policies differ on every single issue. We reinterpret some findings in the literature in the light of our model and present them as potential reasons why the equivalence between direct and representative democracy may fail.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51118,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Mathematical Social Sciences\",\"volume\":\"129 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 85-92\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165489624000404/pdfft?md5=a473f41645fc7bc91cd195e4d3525110&pid=1-s2.0-S0165489624000404-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Mathematical Social Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165489624000404\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mathematical Social Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165489624000404","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

如今,西方民主国家的一些社会运动认为,传统的代议制民主未能充分代表 "人民 "的意愿,转而支持直接民主,认为这是恢复多数人意愿的唯一政治制度。我们分析了在什么条件下,两党选举竞争的获胜者所执行的政策--每个问题的决策矢量--与公民通过直接民主选择的政策相吻合。我们发现了这种等同性成立的必要条件和充分条件,这意味着只要其中至少一个条件不满足,就会出现直接民主与代议制民主之间的结果差异。第一个条件要求,相对于选民对一系列政策的偏好,逐个问题的多数投票结果是康德赛特获胜者。第二个条件是,要么该结果是至少一位候选人的首选政策,要么候选人的首选政策在每一个问题上都不同。我们将根据我们的模型重新解释文献中的一些发现,并将其作为直接民主与代议制民主之间等同性可能失效的潜在原因。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Implementing direct democracy via representation

Today, several social movements in western democracies argue that traditional representative democracy has failed to adequately represent the will of the “people”, and instead support direct democracy as the only political system to restore the will of the majority. We analyze under what conditions the policy – a vector of decisions on every issue – implemented by the winner of a bipartisan electoral competition coincides with the policy that citizens would choose by means of direct democracy. We find necessary and sufficient conditions for this equivalence to hold, implying that, as long as at least one of them is not fulfilled, a divergence of outcomes between direct and representative democracy arises. The first condition requires that the outcome of majority voting issue-by-issue is the Condorcet winner relative to the voters’ preference profile over the set of policies. The second requires that either that outcome is the preferred policy for at least one of the candidates, or that candidates’ preferred policies differ on every single issue. We reinterpret some findings in the literature in the light of our model and present them as potential reasons why the equivalence between direct and representative democracy may fail.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Mathematical Social Sciences
Mathematical Social Sciences 数学-数学跨学科应用
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
审稿时长
59 days
期刊介绍: The international, interdisciplinary journal Mathematical Social Sciences publishes original research articles, survey papers, short notes and book reviews. The journal emphasizes the unity of mathematical modelling in economics, psychology, political sciences, sociology and other social sciences. Topics of particular interest include the fundamental aspects of choice, information, and preferences (decision science) and of interaction (game theory and economic theory), the measurement of utility, welfare and inequality, the formal theories of justice and implementation, voting rules, cooperative games, fair division, cost allocation, bargaining, matching, social networks, and evolutionary and other dynamics models. Papers published by the journal are mathematically rigorous but no bounds, from above or from below, limits their technical level. All mathematical techniques may be used. The articles should be self-contained and readable by social scientists trained in mathematics.
期刊最新文献
Consistent conjectures in dynamic matching markets Inequality and bipolarization-reducing mixed taxation Project selection with partially verifiable information On the decomposability of fractional allocations Node centrality based on its edges importance: The Position centrality
×
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