Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-01T18:53:03.393Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Minority Voting Rights Can Maximize Majority Welfare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Michael Suk-Young Chwe
Michael Suk-Young Chwe*
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I use Condorcet's information aggregation model to show that sometimes the best possible decision procedure for the majority allows the minority to “enforce” its favored outcome even when overruled by a majority. “Special” voting power gives the minority an incentive to participate meaningfully, and more participation means more information is aggregated, which makes the majority better off. This result can be understood as a mathematical corroboration of Lani Guinier's arguments that voting procedures can be designed to encourage minority participation, benefitting everyone.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 93 , Issue 1 , March 1999 , pp. 85 - 97
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aumann, Robert J. 1976. “Agreeing to Disagree.” Annals of Statistics 4(11):1236–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aumann, Robert J. 1987. “Correlated Equilibrium as an Expression of Bayesian Rationality.” Econometrica 55(01):1–18.Google Scholar
Austen-Smith, David, and Banks, Jeffrey S.. 1996. “Information Aggregation, Rationality, and the Condorcet Jury Theorem.” American Political Science Review 90(03):34–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brischetto, Robert. 1995. “Cumulative Voting as an Alternative to Districting: An Exit Survey of Sixteen Texas Communities.” National Civic Review 84(Fall-Winter):347–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvert, Randall L. 1985. “The Value of Biased Information: A Rational Choice Model of Political Advice.” Journal of Politics 47(05):530–55.Google Scholar
Condorcet, Marie Jean Antoine Nicolas Caritat. 1785. “Essai sur l'Application de l'Analyse à la Probabilité des Décisions Rendues à la Pluralité des Voix.” Paris.Google Scholar
Dawson, Michael C. 1994. Behind the Mule: Race and Class in African-American Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Feddersen, Timothy J., and Pesendorfer, Wolfgang. 1996. “The Swing Voter's Curse.” American Economic Review 86(06):408–24.Google Scholar
Feddersen, Timothy J., and Pesendorfer, Wolfgang. 1997. “Voting Behavior and Information Aggregation in Elections with Private Information.” Econometrica 65(09):1029–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzmaurice, John. 1983. The Politics of Belgium: Crisis and Compromise in a Plural Society. New York: St. Martin's.Google Scholar
“Goodbye Gridlock, Hello Steamroller; Clinton's Budget, ‘Motor Voter’ Plans Move toward Congressional Approval.” 1993. Time, 03 29.Google Scholar
Greenhouse, Linda. 1992. “In Retreat, Supreme Court Limits Scope of '65 Voting Rights Act.” New York Times, January 28.Google Scholar
Grofman, Bernard, Handley, Lisa, and Niemi, Richard G.. 1992. Minority Representation and the Quest for Voting Equality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grofman, Bernard, and Owen, Guillermo. 1986. “Review Essay: Condorcet Models, Avenues for Future Research.” In Information Pooling and Group Decision Making: Proceedings of the Second University of California, Irvine, Conference on Political Economy, ed. Grofman, Bernard and Owen, Guillermo. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Pp. 93–102.Google Scholar
Grofman, Bernard, and Withers, Julie. 1993. “Information-pooling Models of Electoral Politics.” In Information, Participation, and Choice: An Economic Theory of Democracy in Perspective, ed. Grofman, Bernard. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Pp. 55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guinier, Lani. 1994. The Tyranny of the Majority: Fundamental Fairness in Representative Democracy. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Harsanyi, J. C. 1968. “Games with Incomplete Information Played by Bayesian Players, Part III. The Basic Probability Distribution of the Game.” Management Science 14(03):486–502.Google Scholar
Madison, James. 1788. The Federalist Papers. Nos. 10, 51. New York.Google Scholar
McLennan, Andrew. 1998. “Consequences of the Condorcet Jury Theorem for Beneficial Information Aggregation by Rational Agents.” American Political Science Review 92(06):413–8.Google Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. 1861. Considerations on Representative Government. London: Parker, Son, and Bourn.Google Scholar
Miller, Nicholas R. 1983. “Pluralism and Social Choice.” American Political Science Review 77(09):734–47.Google Scholar
Miller, Nicholas R. 1986. “Information, Electorates, and Democracy: Some Extensions and Interpretations of the Condorcet Jury Theorem.” In Information Pooling and Group Decision Making: Proceedings of the Second University of California, Irvine, Conference on Political Economy, ed. Grofman, Bernard and Owen, Guillermo. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Pp. 173–92.Google Scholar
Morris, Stephen. 1995. “The Common Prior Assumption in Economic Theory.” Economics and Philosophy 11(10):227–53.Google Scholar
Myerson, Roger B. 1991. Game Theory: Analysis of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nagel, Jack H. 1995. “Constitutional Reform and Minority Representation in New Zealand.” Photocopy, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Nitzan, Shmuel, and Paroush, Jacob. 1982. “Optimal Decision Rules in Uncertain Dichotomous Choice Situations.” International Economic Review 23(06):289–97.Google Scholar
Nitzan, Shmuel, and Paroush, Jacob. 1985. Collective Decision Making: An Economic Outlook. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schelling, Thomas C. 1980. The Strategy of Conflict. 2d ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schotter, Andrew, and Weigelt, Keith. 1992. “Asymmetric Tournaments, Equal Opportunity Laws, and Affirmative Action: Some Experimental Results.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 107(05): 511–39.Google Scholar
Shapley, Lloyd S., and Grofman, Bernard. 1984. “Optimizing Group Judgmental Accuracy in the Presence of Interdependencies.” Public Choice 43(3):329–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Still, Edward, and Karlan, Pamela. 1995. “Cumulative Voting as a Remedy in Voting Rights Cases.” National Civic Review 84(Fall–Winter):337–46.Google Scholar
Thompson, Dennis F. 1976. John Stuart Mill and Representative Government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Young, H. Peyton. 1995. “Optimal Voting Rules.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 9(Winter):51–64.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.