Arrow

1
Arrows Theorem

• Asks the question Are there any good choice
  rules?
• Good means
• Not Dictatorship
• Independent of Irrelevant Alternatives
• Weakly Paretian
• No Preference Restrictions

Impossible
2
Single-peaked Preferences

• Preferences are single-peaked if the
  alternatives can be ordered so that the further
  away an alternative lies from an individuals
  ideal point the less the individual likes it.
• Often a reasonable assumption, e.g., preferences
  over government spending

3
Single-peaked Preferences
4
Single-peaked Preferences
5
Single-peaked Preferences

• If preferences are single-peaked Majority Rule,
  for example, can satisfy all of Arrows
  conditions!
• Although helpful, single-peaked preferences do
  not solve all our problems
• Rarely do we vote on a single-issue. Government
  spending, e.g., involves deciding a tax-rate and
  on what to spend.

6
Dimensionality of Choice

• Choices involving two or more issue dimensions
  run into problems with transitivity (or
  acyclicity).

7
McKelveys Chaos Theorem
Voter 2
y
x
Voter 1
Voter 3
Holds for any x we choose in the space !
8
Strategic Voting

• Not voting for once ideal point
• Why? Individuals may benefit from
  misrepresenting their preferences.
• Ex Voting for third party candidates in
  single-member plurality rule districts.
• Gibbard-Satterwaithe Theorem Strategic voting
  is always possible if there are more than two
  alternatives.

9
Other forms of strategic action

• Control of the agenda Under certain
  circumstances a control of the agenda can mean
  control of the outcome.
• Strategic Candidacy/Introduction of Amendments
  Introducing new alternatives may influence
  outcomes
• Strategic Issues Forcing a simultaneous vote on
  two issues may influence outcomes.

10
Rikers Conclusions

• Conclusion 1 No accurate or fair aggregation
  methods.
• Conclusion 2 Any outcome lacks meaning
  because a) we dont know preferences b) can
  therefore not preclude strategic behavior.

11
Rikers Conclusions

• Populism What people want should be.
• Riker argues that we can not possible determine
  what the people want and, thus, populism is a
  hopeless ideal.
• Liberalism Only requires that it is possible to
  get rid of ineffective officials.

12
Populist Institutions

• Since elections are assumed to be an expression
  of the General Will government institutions
  must ensure the enactment of the General Will.
• Absence of constitutional restraints
• No external restraints Independent Courts
• Party discipline necessary
• Majority Party

13
Liberal Institutions

• Regular Elections.
• Constitutional Restraints associated with
  Liberalism but not logically necessary.
• Recognizes, however, the need for institutions
  that guarantee regular elections Checks
  Balances, etc.

14
The Threat of Populism

• Rikers prescription is clear but he still fears
  populist tendencies.
• Politicians mobilizing support
• Disillusioned Voters
• The American system of government reduces risk
  of populist tendencies
• Forces coalition building
• Incremental
• Localism weak parties

15
The Threat of Populism

• Wonders about the British system (Westminster).
  Strong powers of Prime Ministers threat of
  dictatorship.
• Yet no-one would consider Britain undemocratic!
  Coincidence?
• Or are there more than one way of achieving
  democratic governance?

16
What is the best system ?

• Riker, like many others, would argue the U.S.
• Not quite democratic around mid-60s (Dahl)
• Switzerland
• Chile
• U.S
• Death penalty only the U.S. among western
  countries.

17
Other factors (more subjective)

• Western European countries
• Democratic
• Social security
• Health insurance
• Education
• Coincidence ?
• Culture ?

18
Patterns of Democracy

• Unlike Riker, Lijphart is not attempting to
  define democracy.
• Rather, recognizing different types of
  democracies, populist or liberal, Lijphart
  addresses the question whether some perform
  better than others.

19
Patterns of Democracy

• Riker Liberalism vs. Populism
• Lijphart Majoritarian vs. Consensual
• Liberalism ? Majoritarian
• U.K. majoritarian but populist
• Riker Concern with perception of what a vote
  means
• Lijphart Concern with institutions

20
Patterns of Democracy

• All of the democracies that Lijphart considers
  satisfy Rikers minimal requirement Elections.
• Lijpharts simple plan
• Pick out all long lasting democratic countries
• Classify them as majoritarian or consensual
• See who does best on a variety of criteria

21
Majoritarian vs. Consensual

• Government by the people or for the people.
• In other words Governance by representatives or
  according to their preferences.
• Rikers response ?

22
Government by and for the People

• Basic question To whose interest should the
  Government be responsive ?
• One Possibility The Majority
• Pros Intuitively appealing the alternative is
  government by the minority.
• Another Possibility As many as possible.
• Majority a minimum requirement.
• Include as many minorities as possible.

23
Majoritarian Model

• Concentration of power in the hands of a bare
  majority sometimes plurality
• Exclusive
• Competitive
• Adversarial

24
Consensual Model

• Rule and Institutions aim at broad
  participation
• Inclusive
• Bargaining
• Compromise
• Negotiation Democracy

25
Ten Differences

• Executive-parties Dimension
• Concentration of Executive Power
• Executive-Legislative Balance of Power
• Two-party or Multiparty system
• Majoritarian vs. PR Electoral System
• Pluralism vs. Corporatism

26
Ten Differences

• Federal-Unitary Dimension
• Centralized vs. Federal Government
• Unicameral vs. Bicameral
• Flexible vs. Rigid Constitutions
• Judicial Review of Legislation
• Independence of Central Banks

27
The extremes

• Pure Majoritarian Countries
• The U.K.
• New Zealand (until 1996)
• Barbados
• Pure Consensual Countries
• Switzerland
• Belgium
• The E.U.

28
The U.S. PR

• Democrats
• Republicans
• Greens
• Libertarian
• Far/Christian Right ?
• Ethnic Parties
• Black ?
• Hispanic ?
• Asian ?

29
Values

• What do we know about American Values ?
• Are American Values in any sense defined by
  political leaders/parties ?
• If so, do we have any evidence that the parties
  aggregate values/ preferences in a fair or a
  non-arbitrary manner ?

30
The U.K.

• The Majoritarian model usually identified with
  the U.K. hence its alternative moniker
  Westminster model
• However, New Zealand was even a better example
  of a majoritarian system.

31
The U.K.

• Concentration of Executive Power
• One-party
• Bare Majority
• Coalitions extremely rare
• Executive-Legislative Balance of Power
• Parliamentary Government
• Cabinet dominance
• Control of Majority
• Disciplined Parties

32
The U.K.

• Party system
• Two dominant parties
• Labour and Conservatives
• Liberals Social Democrats Liberal Democrats
• Disproportionality