Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-wxk4p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T10:14:09.620Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Committee Decisions under Majority Rule Revisited

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 June 2016

Jan Sauermann
Jan Sauermann*
Affiliation:
Cologne Center for Comparative Politics, University of Cologne, P.O. Box 411020, 50870 Cologne, Germany, e-mail: jan.sauermann@uni-koeln.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Spatial committee decision-making experiments provide ample evidence for the predictive power of the majority rule core if it is not empty. Furthermore, an empty core does not substantively reduce the stability of majority decision making. In this article, I put these two findings to a critical test using two preference configurations from Fiorina's and Plott's (1978) seminal committee experiments. In my experiment, committees with fixed individual preferences make multiple decisions over time. Contrary to the existing evidence, I find that results diverge from the core in the course of the experiment. In line with previous research, an empty core has no noticeable behavioral effects.

Keywords

Committee decision makingmajority rulelaboratory experiment

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Experimental Political Science , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , Winter 2016 , pp. 185 - 196
Copyright
Copyright © The Experimental Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2016 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Agranov, Marina and Tergiman, Chloe. 2014. “Communication in Multilateral Bargaining.” Journal of Public Economics 118: 75–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, David P. and Ferejohn, John A.. 1989. “Bargaining in Legislatures.” American Political Science Review 83 (4): 1181–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berl, Janet E., McKelvey, Richard D., Ordeshook, Peter C., and Winer, Mark D.. 1976. “An Experimental Test of the Core in a Simple N-Person Cooperative Nonsidepayment Game.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 20 (3): 453–79.Google Scholar
Bianco, William T., Lynch, Michael S., Miller, Gary J., and Sened, Itai. 2006. “‘A Theory Waiting to Be Discoverd and Used’: A Reanalysis of Canonical Experiments on Majority Rule Decision-Making.” Journal of Politics 68 (4): 838–51.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1989. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Diermeier, Daniel and Morton, Rebecca B.. 2005. “Experiments in Majoritarian Bargaining.” In Social Choice and Strategic Decisions. Essays in Honor of Jeffrey S. Banks, ed. Austen-Smith, D. and Duggan, J.. 201–26. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Eavey, Cheryl L. 1991. “Patterns of Distribution in Spatial Games.” Rationality and Society 3 (4): 450–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eavey, Cheryl L. and Miller, Gary J.. 1984. “Fairness in Majority Rule Games with a Core.” American Journal of Political Science 28 (4): 570–86.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P., and Plott, Charles R.. 1978. “Committee Decisions under Majority Rule: An Experimental Study.” American Political Science Review 72 (2): 575–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischbacher, Urs. 2007. “z-Tree: Zurich Toolbox for Ready-Made Economic Experiments.” Experimental Economics 10 (2): 171–78.Google Scholar
Fréchette, Guillaume, Kagel, John H., and Lehrer, Steven F.. 2003. “Bargaining in Legislatures: An Experimental Investigation of Open Versus Closed Amendment Rules.” American Political Science Review 97 (2): 221–32.Google Scholar
Greiner, Ben. 2004. “An Online Recruitment System for Economic Experiments.” In Forschung und Wissenschaftliches Rechnen 2003. GWDG Bericht 63, ed. Kremer, K. and Macho, V., 79–93. Göttingen: Gesellschaft für wissenschaftliche Datenverarbeitung.Google Scholar
Isaac, Mark R., and Plott, Charles R.. 1978. “Cooperative Game Models of the Influence of the Closed Rule in Three Person, Majority Rule Committees: Theory and Experiment.” In Game Theory and Political Science, ed. Ordeshook, P. C., 283–322. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
McKelvey, Richard D. 1976. “Intransitivities in Multidimensional Voting Models and Some Implications for Agenda Control.” Journal of Economic Theory 12 (3): 472–82.Google Scholar
McKelvey, Richard D., and Ordeshook, Peter C.. 1984. “An Experimental Study of the Effects of Procedural Rules on Committee Behavior.” Journal of Politics 46 (1): 182–203.Google Scholar
McKelvey, Richard D., and Ordeshook, Peter C.. 1990. “A Decade of Experimental Research on Spatial Models of Elections and Committees.” In Advances in the Spatial Theory of Voting, ed. Enelow, J. M. and Hinich, M. J., 99–144. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Gary J. 2011. “Legislative Voting and Cycling.” In Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science, ed. Druckman, J. N., Green, D. P., Kuklinski, J. H. and Lupia, A., 353–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Gary J. and Oppenheimer, Joe A.. 1982. “Universalism in Experimental Committees.” American Political Science Review 76 (3): 561–74.Google Scholar
Plott, Charles R. 1967. “A Notion of Equilibrium and Its Possibility under Majority Rule.” American Economic Review 57 (4): 787–806.Google Scholar
Riker, William H. 1982. Liberalism against Populism. A Confrontation between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
Sauermann, Jan, and Kaiser, André. 2010. “Taking Others into Account: Self-Interest and Fairness in Majority Decision Making.” American Journal of Political Science 54 (3): 667–85.Google Scholar
Schofield, Norman. 1978. “Instability of Simple Dynamic Games.” Review of Economic Studies 45 (3): 575–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, Sidney, and Castellan, N. John Jr.. 1988. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Wilson, Rick K. 2008. “Endogenous Properties of Equilibrium and Disequilibrium in Spatial Committee Games.” In Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Vol. 1, ed. Plott, C. R. and Smith, V. L., 873–79. North-Holland: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Sauermann supplementary material S1

Sauermann supplementary material

Download Sauermann supplementary material S1(File)
File 553.7 KB
Supplementary material: File

Sauermann supplementary material S2

Sauermann supplementary material

Download Sauermann supplementary material S2(File)
File 172.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Sauermann supplementary material S3

Sauermann supplementary material

Download Sauermann supplementary material S3(File)
File 347.3 KB