Aarts, Kees, and Wessels, Bernhard. “Electoral Turnout.” In The European Voter: A Comparative Study of Modern Democracies, edited by Thomassen, J.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.Google Scholar

Abramson, Paul. Politics in the Bible. New Brunswick: Transaction Press, 2012.Google Scholar

Adams, James. “Policy Divergence in Multicandidate Probabilistic Spatial Voting.” Public Choice 100 (1999): 103–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adams, James, Merrill, Samuel and Grofman, Bernard. A Unified Theory of Party Competition: a cross-national analysis integrating spatial and behavioral factors. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adams, James, Dow, Jay, and Merrill, Samuel. “The Political Consequences of Alienation-Based and Indifference-Based Voter Abstention: Applications to Presidential Elections.” Political Behavior 28 (2006): 65–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adams, James, and Merrill, Samuel. “Why Small, Centrist Third Parties Motivate Policy Divergence by Major Parties.” American Political Science Review 100 (2006): 403–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adams, James, Brunell, Thomas, Grofman, Bernard and Merrill, Samuel. “Why Candidate Divergence Should be Expected to be Just as Great (or even Greater) in Competitive Seats as in Non-Competitive Ones.” Public Choice 145, no. 3–4 (2010): 417–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Akerlof, George, and Dickens, William. “The Economic Consequences of Cognitive Dissonance.” American Economic Review (June 1982): 307–19.

Aldrich, John. “Some Problems in Testing Two Rational Models of Participation.” American Political Science Review 20 (1976): 713–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aldrich, John. Before the Convention: Strategies and Choices in Presidential Nomination Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aldrich, John. “A Spatial Model with Party Activists: Implications for Electoral Dynamics.” Public Choice 41 (1983a): 63–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aldrich, John. “A Downsian Spatial Model with Party Activism.” American Political Science Review 77 (1983b): 974–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aldrich, John. “Rational Choice and Turnout.” American Journal of Political Science 37 (1993): 246–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aldrich, John. Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Party Politics in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aldrich, John, Jacob Montgomery and Wendy Wood. “Turnout as a Habit.” Political Behavior 33 (2011): 4, 535–563.Google Scholar

Aldrich, John, and Simon, Dennis. “Turnout in American National Elections.” Research in Micropolitics 1 (1986): 271–301. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar

Alesina, Alberto. “Credibility and Convergence in a Two-Party System with Rational Voters.” American Economic Review 78 (1988): 796–80Google Scholar

Alesina, Alberto, and Rosenthal, Howard. Partisan Politics, Divided Government, and the Economy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Alt, James, and Shepsle, Kenneth. “Rules, Restrictions, Constraints: Structure and Process in the New Institutional Economics.” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 154 (1998): 735–44.Google Scholar

Ambrose, Stephen. Undaunted Courage: Meriwether Lewis, Thomas Jefferson, and the Opening of the American West. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2002.Google Scholar

Aristophanes, . The Frogs. Edited and translated by Henderson, Jeffrey. Newburyport, MA: Focus Classical Library, 2008.Google Scholar

Aristotle, . Politics and Poetics. Translated by Jowett, and Butcher, . Norwalk, CN: Easton Press, 1979.Google Scholar

Arrow, Kenneth J. (1951) 1963. Social Choice and Individual Values. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1st edition published by Wiley.Google Scholar

Arthur, W. Brian. “Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-in by Historical Events: Economic Journal 99 (1989): 116–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Asay, Garrett R. Beeler. “How does ideology matter in the spatial model of voting?” Public Choice 135 (2008): 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Austen-Smith, David. “Information Transmission in Debate.” American Journal of Political Science 34 (1990): 124–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Austen-Smith, David, and Banks, Jeffrey. “Information Aggregation, Rationality, and the Condorcet Jury Theorem.” American Political Science Review, 90 (1996): 34–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Austen-Smith, David, and Banks, Jeffrey. Positive Political Theory I. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Austen-Smith, David, and Banks, Jeffrey. Positive Political Theory II. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bach, Stanley. “Germaneness Rules and Bicameral Relations in the U.S. Congress.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 7, no. 3 (1982): 341–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Balasko, Yves, and Cres, Herve. “The Probability of Condorcet Cycles and Super Majority Rules.” Journal of Economic Theory 75 (1997): 237–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Banks, Jeffrey, and Sobel, Joel. “Equilibrium Selection in Signaling Games.” Econometrica 55 (1987): 647–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Banks, Jeffrey. “A Model of Electoral Competition with Incomplete Information.” Journal of Economic Theory 50 (1990): 309–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Banks, Jeffrey. Signaling Games in Political Science. Chur, Switzerland; Harwood Academic, 1991.Google Scholar

Banks, Jeffrey. “Singularity Theory and Core Existence in the Spatial Model.” Journal of Mathematic Economics 24 (1995): 523–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Banks, Jeffrey. “Review: Analytical Politics.” Journal of Economic Literature 36, no. 3 (1998): 1506–1507.Google Scholar

Barker, Graeme. The Agricultural Revolution in Prehistory: Why did Foragers become Farmers?Oxford University Press, 2009.Google Scholar

Baron, D., and Ferejohn, J.. “Bargaining in legislatures.” American Political Science Review 83, no. 4 (1989): 1182–1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barr, James L., and Davis, Otto A.. “An Elementary Political and Economic Theory of the Expenditures of Local Governments.” Southern Economic Journal 33 (1966): 149–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barro, Robert. “The Control of Politicians: An Economic Model.” Public Choice 14 (1973): 19–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barry, Brian. Sociologists, Economists, and Democracy. London: Collier-Macmillan, 1970.Google Scholar

Barzel, Yoram, and Silberberg, Eugene. “Is the Act of Voting Rational?” Public Choice 16 (1973): 61–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bassi, A.“A Model of Endogenous Government Formation”. Department of Politics, New York University, (2008).Google Scholar

Beardon, Alan F., Candeal, Juan, Herden, Gerhard, Indurain, Esteban, and Mehta, Ghanshyam. “The Non-Existence of a Utility Function and the Structure of Non-Representable Preference Relations.” Journal of Mathematical Economics 37, no. 1 (2002): 17–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Becker, Gary. Accounting for Tastes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998.Google Scholar

Beik, William. Absolutism and Society in Seventeenth-Century France. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bender, Bruce, and Lott, John. “Legislator Voting and Shirking: A Critical Review of the Literature.” Public Choice 87 (1996): 67–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bendor, J. D. Diermeier, Siegel, D., and Ting, M.. A Behavioral Theory of Elections. Princeton University Press, 2011.Google Scholar

Bental, Benjamin, and Ben-Zion, Uri. “Political Contribution and Policy: Some Extensions.” Public Choice 24 (1975): 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Berger, Mark M. and Munger, Michael C., and Potthoff, Richard F.. “The Downsian Model Predicts Divergence.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 12 (2000): 228–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bergson, Abram. “A Reformulation of Certain Aspects of Welfare Economics.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 52, 2 (1938): 310–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bergstrom, Theodore. “Collective Choice and the Lindahl Allocation Method,” in Economics of Externalities, Lin, S.Y., Editor. New York: Academic Press, (1973): 111–131.Google Scholar

Bergstrom, Theodore. “Evolution of Social Behavior: Individual and Group Selection.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 16, 2 (2002): 67–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bergstrom, Theodore, and Goodman, Robert. “Private Demands for Public Goods.” The American Economic Review 63 (1973): 280–296.Google Scholar

Bergstrom, Theodore, and Rader, Trout. “An Economic Approach to Social Choice II,” Public Choice, 33(1978): 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bernhardt, M. Daniel, and Ingberman, Daniel E.. 1985. “Candidate Reputations and the Incumbency Effect.” Journal of Public Economics 27 (1985): 47–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bessette, Joseph. The Mild Voice of Reason: Deliberative Democracy & American National Government. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.Google Scholar

Bianco, William. Trust: Representatives and Constituents. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bible: The New Oxford Annotated Bible: With the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books, New Revised Standard Version. Edited by Michael D. Coogan. New York: Oxford UP, 2001. Print.

Bierce, Ambrose. (1906) 2011. The Devil’s Dictionary, Tales, and Memoirs. New York: Library of America, Inc.Google Scholar

Birch, S. Full Participation: A Comparative Study of Compulsory Voting. Manchester University Press, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Black, Duncan. “On the Rationale of Group Decision-making.” Journal of Political Economy 56 (1948): 23–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Black, Duncan. (1958) 1987. The Theory of Committees and Elections. New York: Cambridge University Press. Reprinted Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar

Black, Duncan, and Newing, R. A.. Committee Decisions with Complementary Valuation. London: Lowe and Brydon, 1951.Google Scholar

Blais, Andre. To Vote or Not to Vote? The Merits and Limits of Rational Choice Theory. University of Pittsburg Press, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blin, J.M., and Satterthwaite, Mark. “Individual Decisions and Group Decisions.” Journal of Public Economics 10 (1978): 247–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bogomolnaia, Anna, and Laslier, Jean-François. 2007. “Euclidean Preferences.” Journal of Mathematical Economics 43 (2007): 87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bonilla, Claudio A. 2004. “A model of political competition in the underlying space of ideology.” Public Choice 121 (2004): 51–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bonilla, Claudio A., Carlyn, R., Love, G., and Silva, E.. “Social or Political Cleavages? A Spatial Analysis of the Party System in Post-Authoritarian Chile.” Public Choice 146 (2011): 9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Borcherding, Thomas, and Deacon, Robert. “The Demand for the Services of Non-Federal Governments.” The American Economic Review 62 (1972): 891–901.Google Scholar

Brady, Henry. “The Art of Political Science: Spatial Diagrams as Iconic and Revelatory.” (APSA Presidential Address). Perspectives on Politics 9 (2011): 311–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Braidwood, Robert J. “The Agricultural Revolution.” Scientific American 203 (1960): 130–148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Braman, Eileen. “Reasoning on the Threshold: Testing the Separability of Preferences in Legal Decision Making.” Journal of Politics 68 (2006): 308–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brams, Steven. Mathematics and Democracy: Designing Better Voting and Fair-Division Procedures. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007.Google Scholar

Brams, Steven, and Fishburn, Peter. Approval Voting. Boston: Birkhauser, 1984.Google Scholar

Brams, Steven, and Nagel, J. H.. “Approval Voting in Practice.” Public Choice 71 (1991): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brams, Steven, and Taylor, Alan. Fair Division: From Cake-Cutting to Dispute Resolution. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Braude, Stanton. “The Predictive Power of Evolutionary Biology and the Discovery of Eusociality in the Naked Mole Rat”. Reports of the NCSE (National Center for Science Education) 17, no. 4 (1997): 12–15.Google Scholar

Brehm, John. The Phantom Respondents: Opinion Surveys and Political Representation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1993.Google Scholar

Brennan, Geoffrey. “The Distributional Implications of Public Goods.” Econometrica (March 1976): 391–400.

Brennan, Geoffrey. “Collective Coherence?” International Review of Law and Economics 21 (2001): 197–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brennan, Geoffrey. “Hobbes’s Samuel.” Public Choice 141, no. 1 (2009): 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brennan, Geoffrey, and Buchanan, James. The Reason of Rules: Constitutional Political Economy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985.Google Scholar

Brennan, Geoffrey, and Lomasky, Loren. Democracy and Decision: The Pure Theory of Electoral Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brennan, Geoffrey, and Mitchell, Nicole. “The Logic of Spatial Politics: The 1998 Queensland Election.” Australian Journal of Political Science 34, no. 3 (1999): 379–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brennan, Geoffrey, and Pettit, Philip. The Economy of Esteem: An Essay on Civil and Political Society. Oxford University Press, 2006.Google Scholar

Brennan, Geoffrey, and Walsh, Cliff. “A Monopoly Model of Public Goods Provision: The Uniform Pricing Case.” American Economic Review 71 (1981): 196–206.Google Scholar

Brennan, Jason. The Ethics of Voting. Princeton University Press, 2011.Google Scholar

Brians, Craig Leonard, and Grofman, Bernard. “When registration barriers fall, who votes?: An empirical test of a rational choice model.” Public Choice 99 (1999): 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brians, Craig Leonard and Grofman, B. “Election day registration’s effect on US voter turnout.” Social Science Quarterly 82, no. 1 (2001): 170–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brody, Richard A., and Page, Benjamin I.. “Indifference, Alienation and Rational Decisions: The Effects of Candidate Evaluation on Turnout and the Vote.” Public Choice 15 (1973): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Buchanan, James. “Social Choice, Democracy, and Free Markets.” Journal of Political Economy 62 (1954): 114–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Buchanan, James. “An Economic Theory of Clubs.” Economica 32, no. 125 (1965): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Buchanan, James. The Limits of Liberty: Between Anarchy and Leviathan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975.Google Scholar

Buchanan, James. “Politics Without Romance: A Sketch of the Positive Public Choice Theory and Its Implications.” Inaugural Lecture, Institute for Advanced Studies. Vienna, 1979. In The Logical Foundations of Constitutional Liberty, 1999. vol. 1 of The Collected Works of James Buchanan, 45–59. Indianapolis, Indiana: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar

Buchanan, James. “Federalism as an Ideal Political Order and an Objective for Constitutional Reform.” Publius 25, no. 2 (1995): 19–27.Google Scholar

Buchanan, James. Economics from the Outside In. College Station, Tex: Texas A&M University Press, 2007Google Scholar

Buchanan, James, and Tollison, Robert. Theory of Public Choice II. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Buchanan, James, and Tullock, Gordon. The Calculus of Consent. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Buckley, William F. “Our Mission Statement.” National Review (19 November 1955).

Burden, Barry. ed. Uncertainty in American Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.Google Scholar

Burke, Edmund. (1970) 1999. “Reflections on the Revolution in France.” In Select Works of Edmund Burke. A New Imprint of the Payne Edition. Foreword and Biographical Note by Francis Canavan. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar

Burnham, Walter D. “The Changing Shape of the American Political University.” American Political Science Review 59 (1965): 7–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Burnham, Walter D.Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics. New York: Norton, 1970.Google Scholar

Calvert, Randall. “Robustness of the Multidimensional Voting Model: Candidate Motivations, Uncertainty, and Convergence.” American Journal of Political Science 29 (1985): 69–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Caplan, Bryan. The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies. New York: Princeton University Press, 2007.Google Scholar

Caro, Robert. The Years of Lyndon Johnson: Volumes I–III. Vintage Books, 2003.Google Scholar

Chamberlain, Gary, and Rothschild, Michael. “A Note on the Probability of Casting a Decisive Vote.” Journal of Economic Theory 25 (1981): 152–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Charney, Evan, and English, William. “Candidate Genes and Political Behavior.” American Political Science Review 106, no. 1 (2012): 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cho, W. K. T., Gimpel, J. G., and Wu, T.. “Clarifying the Role of SES in Political Participation: Policy Threat and Arab American Mobilization.” The Journal of Politics 68 (2006): 977–991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clark, William. Dear Brother: letters of William Clark to Jonathan Clark. Edited by Holmberg, James J.. Yale University Press, 2003.Google Scholar

Clarke, Charles. Men of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1973.Google Scholar

Coase, Ronald H. “The Problem of Social Cost.” Journal of Law and Economics 3 (1960): 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Coate, Stephen, and Conlin, Michael. “A Group Rule: Utilitarian Approach to Voter Turnout Theory and Evidence.” American Economic Review 94, no. 5 (2004): 1476–1504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Coates, Dennis, and Munger, Michael. “Legislative Voting and the Economic Theory of Politics.” Southern Economic Journal 61 (1995): 861–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cohen, Gerald. “Facts and Principles.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 31, no. 3 (2005): 211–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cohen, Linda, and Matthews, Steven. “Constrained Plott Equilibria, Directional Equilibria, and Global Cycling Sets.” Review of Economic Studies 47 (1980): 975–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Coleman, James, and Ferejohn, John. “Democracy and Social Choice.” Ethics 97 (1986): 26–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Collier, Kenneth, McKelvey, Richard, Ordeshook, Peter, and Williams, Kenneth. “Retrospective Voting: An Experimental Study.” Public Choice 53 (1987): 101–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Colomer, Josep M.Political Institutions. Oxford University Press, 2003.Google Scholar

Conaway, Horace Mann. The First French Republic, a Study of the Origin and the Contents of the Declaration of the Rights of Man, of the Constitution, and of the Adoption of the Republican Form of Government in 1792. New York: Columbia University, 1902.Google Scholar

Condorcet(M.J.A.N. de Caritat, Marquis de). 1785. “An Essay on the Applications of Analysis to the Probability of Decisions Rendered by a Plurality of Votes.” Reprinted in McLean, Iain and Urken, Arnold (1995; editors and translators), Classics of Social Choice, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 81–90.Google Scholar

Condorcet(M.J.A.N. de Caritat, Marquis de). 1788. “On the Constitution and Functions of Provincial Assemblies.” Reprinted in McLean, Iain and Urken, Arnold (1995; eds and translators), Classics of Social Choice, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 113–143.Google Scholar

Conover, Pamela Johnston, and Feldman, Stanley. “Projection and the Perception of Candidates.” Western Political Quarterly 35 (1982): 228–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Conover, Pamela Johnston, and Feldman, Stanley. “How People Organize the Political World: A Schematic Model.” American Journal of Political Science 28 (1984): 95–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Conover, Pamela Johnston, and Feldman, Stanley. “Emotional Reactions to the Economy: I’m Mad as Hell and I’m not Going to Take It Anymore.” American Journal of Political Science 30 (1986): 50–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Converse, Phillip. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Ideology and Discontent, edited by Apter, David, 219–41. New York: Free Press, 1964.Google Scholar

Cooter, Robert, and Siegel, Neil. “Collective Action Federalism: A General Theory of Article I, Section 8.” Stanford Law Review 63 (2010): 115.Google Scholar

Coughlin, Peter. Probabilistic Voting Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Coughlin, Peter, and Hinich, Melvin. “Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Single Peakedness in Public Economic Models.” Journal of Public Economics 25 (1984): 323–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Coughlin, Peter, and Palfrey, Thomas. “Pareto Optimality in Spatial Voting Models.” Public Choice 1, no. 4: 307–319.

Cox, Gary. “An Expected Utility Model of Electoral Competition.” Quality and Quantity 18 (1984a): 337–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cox, Gary. “Strategic Electoral Choice in Multi-Member Districts: Approval Voting in Practice?” American Journal of Political Science 28 (1984b): 722–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cox, Gary. “Electoral Equilibrium under Alternative Voting Institutions.” American Journal of Political Science 34 (1987): 903–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cox, Gary. “Centripetal and Centrifugal Incentives in Electoral Systems.” American Journal of Political Science 34 (1990): 903–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cox, Gary. Making Votes count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral Systems. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cox, Gary, and Munger, Michael. “Contributions, Expenditure, Turnout: The 1982 U.S. House Elections.” American Political Science Review 83 (1989): 217–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cox, Gary, and Munger, Michael. “Putting Last Things Last: A Sequential Barriers Model of Turnout and Voter Roll-off.”Typescript, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Department of Political Science, 1991.Google Scholar

Dahl, Robert. A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963.Google Scholar

Darwin, Charles. (1972) 2007. The expression of the emotions in man and animals. New York: Filiquarian.Google Scholar

Davidson, Donald, McKinsey, J. and Suppes, Patrick. “Outlines of a Formal Theory of Value,” Philosophy of Science 22 (1955): 140–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Davis, Darren W., and Silver, Brian D.. “Stereotype Threat and Race of Interviewer Effects in a Survey on Political Knowledge.” American Journal of Political Science 47, no. 1 (2003): 33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Davis, Otto, Morris DeGroot, and Melvin Hinich. “Social Preference Orderings and Majority Rule.” Econometrica 40 (1972): 147–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Davis, Otto, and Hinich, Melvin. “A Mathematical Model of Policy Formation in a Democratic Society.” In Mathematical Applications in Political Science, edited by Bernd, Joseph, vol. 2, 175–208. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1966.Google Scholar

Davis, Otto, and Hinich, Melvin. “On the Power and Importance of the Mean Preference in a Mathematical Model of Democratic Choice.” Public Choice 5 (1968): 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Davis, Otto, Hinich, Melvin, and Ordeshook, Peter. “An Expository Development of a Mathematical Model of the Electoral Process.” American Political Science Review 64 (1970): 426–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Deemen, Adrian. “The Probability of the paradox of voting for weak preference orderings.” Social Choice and Welfare 16, no. 2 (1999): 171–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

De Marchi, Scott. Computational and Mathematical Modeling in the Social Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Denzau, Arthur, and North, Douglass. “Shared Mental Models: Ideologies and Institutions.” Kyklos 47 (1994): 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Denzau, Arthur, and Parks, Robert. “The Continuity of Majority Rule Equilibrium.” Econometrica 43 (1975): 853–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Denzau, Arthur and Parks, Robert. “A problem with public sector preferences.” Journal of Economic Theory 14 (1977): 454–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Denzau, Arthur, and Parks, Robert. “Deriving public sector preferences.” Journal of Public Economics 11 (1979): 335–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Denzau, Arthur, and Parks, Robert. “Existence of voting-market equilibria.” Journal of Economic Theory 30 (1981): 243–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Descartes, Rene. Discourse on Method. Hackett Pub Co Inc., 1980.Google Scholar

Diamond, Jared. The World Until Yesterday: What Can We Learn from Traditional Societies?New York: Penguin, 2013.Google Scholar

Diba, Behzad and Feldman, Allan. “Utility Functions for Public Outputs and Majority Voting.” Journal of Public Economics 25 (1984): 235–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Diermeier, Daniel and Krehbiel, Keith. “Institutionalism as a Methodology.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 15, no. 2 (2003): 123–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Diermeier, Daniel, and Morton, Rebecca. Social Choice and Strategic Decisions. Springer: Berlin, 2005.Google Scholar

Dietrich, Franz, and List, Christian. “A Model of Non-informational Preference Change,” Journal of Theoretical Politics 23 no. 2 (2011): 145–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dietrich, Franz, and List, Christian. “Where do preferences come from?” International Journal of Game Theory 4, no. 23 (2013): 613–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dijkstra, Jacob and Van Assen, Michael A.L.M., and Stokman, Frans N.. “Outcomes of Collective Decisions with Externalities Predicted.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 20 (2008): 415–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dougan, William and Munger, Michael. “The Rationality of Ideology.” Journal of Law and Economics 32 (1989): 119–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dougherty, K.L.Collective Action Under the Articles of Confederation. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.Google Scholar

Dougherty, K.L., and Edward, J.. “The Pareto efficiency and expected costs of k-majority rules.” Politics, Philosophy & Economics (2004).

Dougherty, K.L., and Edward, J.. “Voting For Pareto Optimality: A Multidimensional Analysis.” Public Choice (2011).

Dougherty, K.L., and Edward, J.. The Calculus of Consent and Constitutional Design. New York: Springer, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dow, Jay K. “A Spatial Analysis of Candidate Competition in Dual Member Districts: The 1989 Chilean Senatorial Elections.” Public Choice 97, no. 3 (1998): 451–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Downs, Anthony. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row, 1957.Google Scholar

Downs, Anthony. “The Origins of an Economic Theory of Democracy.” In Information, Participation, and Choice, edited by Grofman, B., 198–201. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1993.Google Scholar

Ducheneaut, Nicholas and Yee, Nicholas. “Collective Solitude and Social Networks in World of Warcraft.” In Social Networking Communities and E-Dating Services: Concepts and Implications, edited by Romm-Livermore, C. and Setzekorn, K., 78–100. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference/IGI Global, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dummett, Michael. Truth and Other Enigmas, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978.Google Scholar

Dunbar, R.I.M. “Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates.” Journal of Human Evolution 22, no. 6 (1992): 469–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dunbar, R.I.M. “Coevolution of neocortical size, group size and language in humans.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16, no. 4 (1993): 681–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Durant, T. Clark, and Weintraub, Michael. “An institutional remedy for ethnic patronage politics.” Journal of Theoretical Politics, 2013 (Forthcoming).

Duverger, Maurice. Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern Sate. London: Methuen, 1951.Google Scholar

Eckel, C, and Holt, C.. “Strategic Voting in Agenda-Controlled Committee Experiments.” American Economic Review 79 (1989): 763–73.Google Scholar

Economist, 2012. “Russian politics–Not such a strongman: The hidden weaknesses of Putin’s Russia.” . (June 9, 2012) Accessed December 23, 2013.

Edlin, A., Gelman, A., and Kaplan, N.. “Voting as a Rational Choice: Why and How People Vote to Improve the Well-Being of Others.” Rationality and Society 19 (2007): 293–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eguia, Jon. “On the spatial representation of preference profiles.” Economic Theory 52, no. 1 (2013): 103–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Elster, Jon. “The Case for Methodological Individualism.” Theory and Society 11 (1982): 453–482.Google Scholar

Endersby, James and Galatas, Steven. “British parties and spatial competition: Dimensions of party evaluation in the 1992 election.” Public Choice 97 (1998): 363–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Enelow, James. “Saving Amendments, Killer Amendments, and an Expected Utility Theory of Sophisticated Voting.” Journal of Politics 43 (1981): 1062–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Enelow, James. “An Expanded Approach to Analyzing Policy-Minded Candidates.” Public Choice 74 (1992): 425–45.Google Scholar

Enelow, James, and Hinich, Melvin. “Nonspatial Candidate Characteristics and Electoral Competition.” Journal of Politics 44 (1982a): 115–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Enelow, James, and Hinich, Melvin. “Ideology, Issues, and the Spatial Theory of Elections.” American Political Science Review 76 (1982b): 493–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Enelow, James, and Hinich, Melvin. “On Plott’s Pairwise Symmetry Condition for Majority Rule Equilibrium.” Public Choice 40 (1983a): 317–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Enelow, James, and Hinich, Melvin. “Voting One Issue at a Time: The Question of Voter Forecasts.” American Political Science Review 77 (1983b): 435–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Enelow, James, and Hinich, Melvin. “Voter Expectations in Multi-State Voting Systems: An Equilibrium Result.” American Journal of Political Science 27 (1983c): 820–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Enelow, James, and Hinich, Melvin. “Probabilistic Voting and the Importance of Centrist Ideologies in Democratic Elections.” Journal of Politics 46 (1984a). 459–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Enelow, James, and Hinich, Melvin. The Spatial Theory of Voting: An—, James, and Melvin Hinich—. “The Location of American Presidential Candidates: An Empirical Test of a New Spatial Model of Elections.” Mathematical and Computer Modeling 12 (1989): 461–70.

Enelow, James, and Hinich, Melvin. “A Test of the Predictive Dimensions Model in Spatial Voting Theory.” Public Choice 78 (1994): 155–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Enelow, James, and Munger, Michael. “The Elements of Candidate Reputation: The Effect of Record and Credibility on Optimal Spatial Location.” Public Choice 77 (1993): 757–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Engelen, B. “Why Compulsory Voting Can Enhance Democracy.” Acta Politica 42 (2007): 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ensley, M.J., De Marchi, S., and Munger, M.C.. “Candidate uncertainty, mental models, and complexity: Some experimental results.” Public Choice 132 (2007): 231–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Epple, Dennis and Kadane, Joseph. “Sequential Voting With Endogenous Voter Forecasts.” American Political Science Review 84, no. 1 (1990): 165–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Epple, Dennis, and Romano, R.. “Ends Against the Middle: Determining Public Provision when there are Private Alternatives.” Journal of Public Economics (October 1996a).

Epple, Dennis, and Romano, R.. “Public Provision of Private Goods” Journal of Political Economy (February 1996b).

Epple, Dennis, and Romano, R.. “Collective and Voluntary Provision of Public Goods.” International Economic Review (March 2003).

Epstein, Richard A. “Exit Rights Under Federalism.” Law and Contemporary Problems 55 (1992): 147–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Erhart, Jacqueline, Sponar, Stephan, Sulyok, Georg, Badurek, Gerald, Ozawa, Masanao, and Hasegawa, Yuji. “Experimental demonstration of a universally valid error–disturbance uncertainty relation in spin measurements.” Nature Physics 8 (2012): 185–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Erikson, Robert. “Why Do People Vote? Because They are Registered.” American Politics Quarterly 9 (1981): 259–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eguia, Jon X. “Foundations of Spatial Preferences.” Journal of Mathematical Economics, 47, 2(2011): 200–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eguia, Jon X. “On the spatial representation of preference profiles.” Economic Theory. 52, 1(2013): 103–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Farquharson, Robin. Theory of Voting. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1969.Google Scholar

Fearon, James. “Rationalist Explanations for War.” International Organization 49 (1995): 379–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fedderson, Tim. “Rational Choice Theory and the Paradox of Not Voting.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 18, no. 1 (2004): 99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fedderson, Tim, and Pesendorfer, Wolfgang. “The Swing Voter’s Curse.” American Economic Review 86 (1996): 408–24.Google Scholar

Fedderson, Tim, and Sandroni, Alvaro. “A Theory of Participation in Elections.” American Economic Review 96, no. 4 (2006): 1271–1282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fedderson, Tim, and Sandroni, Alvaro. “The Calculus of Ethical Voting.” International Journal of Game Theory 35, no. 1 (2006): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fedderson, Tim, and Sandroni, Alvaro. “Ethical Voters and Costly Information Acquisition.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 1, no. 3 (2006): 287–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Feld, Scott and Grofman, Bernard. “The half-win set and the geometry of spatial voting games.” Public Choice 70, no. 2 (1991): 245–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Feld, Scott, Hartly, Richard, Kilgour, Marc, and Miller, Nicholas. “The Uncovered Set in Spatial Voting Games.” Theory and Decision 23, no. 2 (1987): 129–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Feldman, Allan M. and Serrano, Robert. Welfare Economics and Social Choice Theory, (2005).

Feldman, Allan M., and Serrano, Robert. Welfare Economics and Social Choice Theory. New York: Springer Science and Business Media, 2006.Google Scholar

Feldman, Stanley and Conover, Pamela Johnston. “Candidates, Issues and Voters: The Role of Inference in Political Perception.” Journal of Politics 45 (1983): 810–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ferejohn, John. “Incumbent Performance and Electoral Control.” Public Choice 50 (1986): 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ferejohn, John. “The Spatial Model and Elections.” In Information, Participation, and Choice, edited by Grofman, B., 107–24. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1993.Google Scholar

Ferejohn, John, and Fiorina, Morris. “The Paradox of Not Voting: A Decision Theoretic Analysis.” American Political Science Review 68 (1974): 525–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ferejohn, John, and Fiorina, Morris. “Closeness Counts Only in Horseshoes and Dancing.” American Political Science Review 69 (1975): 920–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ferejohn, John, and Grether, David. “Weak Path Independence.” Journal of Economic Theory 14 (1977): 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ferejohn, John, and Noll, Roger. “Uncertainty and the Formal Theory of Campaigns.” American Political Science Review 72 (1978): 492–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fiedler, K. and Unkelbach, C.. “Lottery attractiveness and presentation mode of probability and value information.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 24 (2011): 99–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Finke, Daniel. “Estimating the effects of nonseperable preferences in EU treaty negotiations.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 21 (2009): 543–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Finke, Daniel, and Fleig, Andreas. “The Merits of Adding Complexity: Non-separable Preferences in Spatial Models of European Union Politics.” Journal of Theoretical Politics (2013).

Fiorina, Morris P. “The Voting Decision: Instrumental and Expressive Aspects.” Journal of Politics 38 (1976): 390–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fiorina, Morris P., Retrospective voting in American national elections (3rd ed.) New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989.Google Scholar

Fiorina, Morris P. “Divided Government in the American States: A Byproduct of Legislative Professionalism?” American Political Science Review 88 (1994): 304–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fiorina, Morris P., and Plott, Charles R.. “Committee Decisions under Majority Rule: An Experimental Study.” American Political Science Review 72 (1978): 575–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fishkin, James. Democracy and Deliberation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1991.Google Scholar

Fishkin, James. When the People Speak. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fishkin, James, and Laslett, Peter, eds. Debating Deliberative Democracy. New York: Wiley-Blackwell, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fort, Rodney. “A Recursive Treatment of the Hurdles to Voting.” Public Choice 85 (1995): 45–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Foster, Carroll B. “The Performance of Rational Voter Models in Recent Presidential Elections.” American Political Science Review 78 (1984): 678–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fowler, James H. “Altruism and Turnout.” The Journal of Politics 68 (2006): 674–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fowler, James H., and Dawes, Christopher T.. “Two Genes Predict Voter Turnout.” The Journal of Politics 70 (2008): 579–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fraga, Bernard and Hersh, Eitan. “Voting Costs and Voter Turnout in Competitive Elections.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 5, no. 4 (2011): 339–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Franzen, A. and Pointner, S. “Calling social capital: An analysis of the determinants of success on the TV quiz show “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” Social Networks 33, no. 1 (2011): 79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Friedman, David. Law’s Order. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000.Google Scholar

Friedman, Milton. “The Methodology of Positive Economics.” Essays in Positive Economics. University of Chicago Press, 1953.Google Scholar

Frohlich, Norman and Oppenheimer, Joe. Political Leadership and Collective Goods. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1971.Google Scholar

Fry, Douglas P. and Söderberg, Patrik. “Lethal Aggression in Mobile Forager Bands and Implications for the Origins of War.” Science 341, no. 6143 (2013): 270–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gaertner, Wulf. Domain Conditions in Social Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.Google Scholar

Galatas, S. “None of the Above? Casting Blank Ballots in Ontario Provincial Elections.” Politics & Policy 36 (2008): 448–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gallagher, Michael. “Comparing Proportional Representation Electoral Systems: Quotas, Thresholds, Paradoxes and Majorities.” British Journal of Political Science 22, no 4 (1992): 469–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Galton, Francis. “Vox Populi.” Nature 75 1949 (1907): 450–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gauthier, David. Morals by Agreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.Google Scholar

Gauthier, David. Moral Dealing: Contract, Ethics, and Reason. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990.Google Scholar

Gelman, Andrew, Silver, Nate, and Edlin, Aaron. “What is the probability your vote will make a difference?” Economic Inquiry 1–6 (2010).

Gerber, Alan S., and Green, Donald P. and Larimer, Christopher W.. “Social Pressure and Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment.” American Political Science Review 102 (2008): 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Geys, Benny. “Rational’ Theories of Voter Turnout: A Review.” Political Studies Review 4 (2006): 16–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gibbard, Allan. “Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result.” Econometrica 41 (1973): 587–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gillespie, Richard. Manufacturing Knowledge: A History of the Hawthorne Experiments. Cambridge University Press, 1993.Google Scholar

Gladwell, Malcolm. The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Little, Brown, and Co, 2000.Google Scholar

Goff, Brian and Grier, Kevin. “On the (mis) Measurement of Legislator Ideology and Shirking.” Public Choice 76 (1993): 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gomez, B. T., Hansford, T. G., and Krause, G. A. “The Republicans Should Pray for Rain: Weather, Turnout, and Voting in U.S. Presidential Elections.” The Journal of Politics 69 (2007): 649–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goncalves, B, Perra, N, Vespignani, A. “Modeling Users’ Activity on Twitter Networks: Validation of Dunbar’s Number.” PLoS ONE 6, no. 8 (2011): e22656.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Goodin, Robert E., and List, Christian. “A Conditional Defense of Plurality Rule: generalizing May’s Theorem in a restricted information environment.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (2006): 940–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Granger, Clive William John. Empirical Modeling in Economics: Specification and Evaluation. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Green, Donald, and Shapiro, Ian. Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1994.Google Scholar

Grofman, Bernard. “The Neglected Role of the Status Quo in Models of Issue Voting.” Journal of Politics 47 (1985): 230–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grofman, Bernard, and Feld, Scott. “Rousseau’s General Will: A Condorcetian Perspective.” American Political Science Review 82 (1988): 567–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grofman, Bernard, and Lijphart, Arend, eds. Electoral Laws and Their Political Consequences. New York: Agathon, 1986.Google Scholar

Grofman, Bernard, and Lijphart, Arend, eds. Parliamentary versus Presidential Government. Oxford University Press, 1992.Google Scholar

Groseclose, Tim. “A Model of Candidate Location When One Candidate has a Valence Advantage.” American Journal of Political Science 45 (2001): 862–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grynaviski, Jeffrey D. and Corrigan, Bryce E.. “Specification Issues in Proximity Models of Candidate Evaluation (with Issue Importance).” Political Analysis 14 (2006): 393–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Guinier, Lani. The Tyranny of the Majority: Fundamental Fairness in Representative Democracy. The Free Press, 1994.Google Scholar

Guinier, Lani, and Torres, Gerald. The Miner’s Canary: Enlisting Race, Resisting Power, Transforming Democracy. Harvard University Press, 2002.Google Scholar

Guizot, Francois. Democracy in France. New York: Howard Fertig, 1974.Google Scholar

Guzman, Ricardo, and Munger, Michael. “Freedom of Contract and the Morality of Exchange: Examples From Locke’s Venditio.” Public Choice (2013).

Habermas, Jürgen. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society, translated by McCarthy, Thomas. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1985.Google Scholar

Habermas, Jürgen. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 2: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason, translated by McCarthy, Thomas. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1989.Google Scholar

Hafer, Catherine and Landa, Dimitri. “Majoritarian Debate.” NYU Political Science Working Paper, January 16, 2008.

Hamilton, James, and Ladd, Helen. “Biased Ballots? The Impact of Ballot Structure on North Carolina Elections in 1992.” Public Choice 87 (1996): 259–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hardin, Garrett. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science 162 (1968): 1243–1248.Google ScholarPubMed

Hardin, Russell. “Rationally Justifying Political Coercion,” Journal of Philosophical Research, vol. 15 (1989–90), pp. 79–91, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harsanyi, John. “Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparisons of utility.” Journal of Political Economy 63 (1955): 309–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harsanyi, John. Rational Behavior and Bargaining Equilibrium in Games and Social Situations. Cambridge University Press, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harsanyi, John. “Rule Utilitarianism, Rights, Obligations, and the Theory of Rational Behavior.” Theory and Decision 12, no. 2 (1980): 115–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hayek, Friedrich A.The Constitution of Liberty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960.Google Scholar

Hayek, Friedrich A.Law, Legislation and Liberty. Three volumes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.Google Scholar

Hayes, Beth. “Unions and Strikes with Asymmetric Information.” Journal of Labor Economics 2 (January 1984): 57–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heckelman, Jac and Miller, Nicholas. Handbook of Social Choice and Voting. London: Edward Elgar Publishers, 2014.Google Scholar

Herden, Gerhard and Levin, Vladimir L.. “Utility representation theorems for Debreu separable preorders.” Journal of Mathematical Economics 48, no. 3 (2012): 148–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hicks, John. “The Foundations of Welfare Economics.” Economic Journal (1939).

Hicks, John. (1939) 1946. Value and Capital. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar

Hicks, J.R.The Theory of Wages. New York, 1963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Higgs, Robert. Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.Google Scholar

Hill, Lisa. “Low Voter Turnout in the United States.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 18 (2006): 207–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hillman, Arye. “Hobbes and the prophet Samuel on leviathan government.” Public Choice 141, no. 1 (2009): 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hillygus, D. Sunshine and Shields, Todd G.. The Persuadable Voter: Wedge Issues in Presidential Campaigns. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hinich, Melvin. “The Median Voter Result Is an Artifact.” Journal of Economic Theory 16 (1977): 208–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hinich, Melvin. “Voting as an Act of Contribution.” Public Choice 36 (1981): 135–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hinich, Melvin. “Discussion of the ‘Positive Theory of Legislative Institutions.” Public Choice 50 (1986), 179–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hinich, Melvin, Ledyard, John, and Ordeshook, Peter. “Nonvoting and Existence of Equilibrium under Majority Rule.” Journal of Economic Theory 4 (1972): 144–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hinich, Melvin, and Munger, Michael. “A Spatial Theory of Ideology.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 4 (1992): 5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hinich, Melvin, and Munger, Michael. Ideology and the Theory of Political Choice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hinich, Melvin, and Munger, Michael. Analytical Politics. 1st Edition. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hinich, Melvin, and Munger, Michael. “The Dynamics of Issue Introduction: A Model Based on the Politics of Ideology.” Mathematical and Computer Modeling 48, no. 9–10 (2008): 1510–1518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hinich, Melvin, and Ordeshook, Peter. “Abstentions and Equilibrium in the Electoral Process.” Public Choice 7 (1969): 81–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hinich, Melvin and Ordeshook, Peter. “Plurality Maximization vs. Vote Maximization: A Spatial Analysis with Variable Participation.” American Political Science Review 64 (1970): 772–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hinich, Melvin, and Pollard, Walker. “A New Approach to the Spatial Theory of Electoral Competition.” American Journal of Political Science 25 (1981): 323–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hirschman, Albert O.Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970.Google Scholar

Hobbes, Thomas. (1651) 1990. Leviathan. Hackett Publishers.Google Scholar

Holcombe, Randall G. “The size and significance of the Pareto set in spatial voting models.” Public Choice 116 (2003): 19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hotelling, Harold. “Stability in Competition.” Economic Journal 39 (1929): 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Humes, Brian. “Majority Rule Outcomes and the Choice of Germaneness Rules.” Public Choice 75, no. 4 (1993): 301–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar

International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, .

Jakee, K. and Sun, G.Z.. “Is compulsory voting more democratic?” Public Choice 129, no. 1–2 (2006): 61–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Janis, Irving. Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1972.Google Scholar

Jankowski, Richard. “Altruism and the Decision to Vote: Explaining and Testing High Voter Turnout.” Rationality and Society 19, no. 1 (2007): 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jarvis, Jennifer. “Eusociality in a Mammal: Cooperative Breeding in Naked Mole-Rat Colonies.” Science 212 (May 1981): 571–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jones, Bryan. Reconceiving Decision-Making in Democratic Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.Google Scholar

Jones, Bryan, Talbert, Jeffrey, and Potosky, Matthew. “Uncertainty and Political Debate.” In Uncertainty in American Politics, edited by Burden, , 118–136. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.Google Scholar

Kadane, J. B. “On Division of the Question.” Public Choice 13 (1972): 47–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kalt, Joseph and Zupan, Mark. “Capture and Ideology in the Economic Theory of Politics.” American Economic Review 74 (1984): 279–300.Google Scholar

Kalt, Joseph, and Zupan, Mark. “The Apparent Ideological Behavior of Legislators: Testing for Principal-Agent Slack in Political Institutions.” Journal of Law and Economics 33 (1990): 103–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Katzner, Donald. Static Demand Theory. New York: Macmillan, 1970.Google Scholar

Kau, James and Rubin, Paul. Congressman, Constituents, and Contributors. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, 1981.Google Scholar

Kau, James, and Rubin, Paul. “Economic and Ideological Factors in Congressional Voting.” Public Choice 44 (1984): 385–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Keeley, Lawrence. War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage. London: Oxford University Press, 1996.Google Scholar

Kelly, Jerry S.Social Choice Theory: An Introduction. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kelley, S., Ayres, R., and Bowen, W.. “Registration and Voting: Putting First Things First.” American Political Science Review 61 (1967): 359–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Key, V. O.The Responsible Electorate. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kliemt, H. “The Reason of Rules and the Rule of Reason.” Critica XIX, no. 57 (1987): 43–86.Google Scholar

Kliemt, H. “Constitutional Commitments.” In Neue politische Ökonomie von Normen und Institutionen, 145–173. Tübigen: Mohr, 1993.Google Scholar

Knack, Steve. “Does Rain Help the Republicans? Theory and Evidence on Turnout and the Vote.” Public Choice 79 (1994): 187–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Knight, Frank. Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit. Houghton-Mifflin, 1921.Google Scholar

Kollman, Ken, Miller, John, and Page, Scott. “Adaptive Parties in Spatial Elections.” American Political Science Review 86 (1992): 929–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Konrad, Kai. “Investing in regimes with stationary or roving bandits.” In Guns and Butter: The Economic Causes and Consequences of Conflict, edited by Hess, D., 99–121. MIT Press, 2009. 99–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kontorovich, Eugene. “The Median Voter Theorem in Ancient Athens.” Unpublished Manuscript, Northwestern University Law School, 2003.Google Scholar

Kramer, Gerald. “Sophisticated Voting over Multidimensional Choice Spaces.” Journal of Mathematical Sociology 2 (1972): 165–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kramer, Gerald. “On a Class of Equilibrium Conditions for Majority Rule.” Econometrica 41 (1973): 285–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kramer, Gerald. “A Dynamical Model of Political Equilibrium.” Journal of Economic Theory 16 (1977): 310–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Krehbiel, Keith. Information and Legislative Organization. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kreps, David. Microeconomic Foundations I: Choice and Competitive Markets. Princeton University Press, 2012.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas (1962) 1970 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd/ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kurrild-Klitgaard, Peter and Svendsen, Gert Tinggaard. “Rational Bandits: Plunder, Public Goods and the Vikings.” Public Choice 117 (2003): 255–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lacy, Dean. “A theory of nonseperable preferences in survey responses.” American Journal of Political Science 45 (2001a): 239–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lacy, Dean. “Nonseparable Preferences, Measurement Error, and Unstable Survey Responses.” Political Analysis 9, no. 2 (2001b): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lacy, Dean, and Niou, Emerson. “Nonseparable Preferences and Issue Packaging in Elections.” In Advances in Political Economy: Institutions, Modeling, and Empirical Analysis, edited by Schofield, N., Caballero, G., and Kselman, D., 203–215. New York: Springer Verlag, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lacy, Dean, and Paolino, Philip. “Testing Proximity Versus Directional Voting Using Experiments.” Electoral Studies 29 (2010): 460–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Landau, L.D. and Lifshitz, L.M.. Quantum Mechanics Non-Relativistic Theory, Third Edition: Volume 3. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, 1981.Google Scholar

Ladha, Krishna. “The Condorcet Jury Theorem, Free Speech, and Correlated Votes.” American Journal of Political Science 36 (1992): 61.7–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ladha, Krishna. “Hypothesis Testing and the Jury Theorem.” In Collective Decision Making: Social Choice and Political Economy, edited by Schofield, N., 385–92. Boston: Kluwer Academic, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ladha, Krishna, and Miller, Gary. “Political Discourse, Factions, and the General Will: Correlated Voting and Condorcet’s Jury Theorem.” In Collective Decision Making: Social Choice and Political Economy, edited by Schofield, N., 393–410. Boston: Kluwer Academic, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lapp, Miriam. “Incorporating groups into rational choice explanations of turnout: An empirical test.” Public Choice 98 (1999): 171–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Laver, Michael. Private Desires, Political Action. London: Sage Publications, 1997.Google Scholar

Laver, Michael, de Marchi, Scott, and Mutlu, Hande. “Negotiation in legislatures over government formation.” Public Choice 147, no. 3–4 (2011): 285–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Laver, Michael, and Schofield, Norman. Multiparty Government: The Politics of Coalition in Europe. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.Google Scholar

Laver, Michael, and Shepsle, K.A.. Cabinet ministers and parliamentary government, Political economy of institutions and decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.Google Scholar

Laver, Michael, and Shepsle, K.A.. Making and Breaking Governments: Government Formation in Parliamentary Democracies. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ledyard, John O. “The Paradox of Voting and Candidate Competition: A General Equilibrium Analysis.” In Essays in Contemporary Fields of Economics, edited by Horwich, G. and Quirk, J., 54–80. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 1981.Google Scholar

Ledyard, John O. “The Pure Theory of Large Two Candidate Elections.” Public Choice 44 (1984): 7–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lerner, A.P. and Singer, H.W.. “Some Notes on Duopoly and Spatial Competition.” Journal of Political Economy 45, no. 2 (1937): 145–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lewin, Leif. Self-Interest and Public Interest in Western Politics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lewis, David. Convention: A Philosophical Study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969.Google Scholar

Liebell, Susan. “Lockean Switching: Imagination and the Production of Principles of Toleration.” Perspectives on Politics 7, no. 4 (2009): 823–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lindahl, Erik. (1939) 1970. Studies in the Theory of Money and Capital. A. M. Kelley.Google Scholar

Lindahl, Erik. “Just Taxation – A Positive Solution.” original in German, 1919. Translated by Musgrave, R. and Peacock, A., editors, Classics in the Theory of Public Finance. London: Macmillan. 168–176, (1958).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

List, Christian. “Multidimensional Welfare AggregationPublic Choice, 119: 2004: 119–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

List, Christian. “The Discursive Dilemma and Public Reason.” Ethics, 2006 116: 362–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

List, Christian. “The Logical Space of Democracy.” Philosophy and Public Affairs, 39 2011 262–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

List, Christian, and Goodin, R. E, “Epistemic Democracy: Generalizing the Condorcet Jury Theorem.” Journal of Political Philosophy, 9: 2001 277–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

List, Christian and Pettit, P., “Aggregating Sets of Judgments: An Impossibility Result.” Economics and Philosophy, 18(1): 2002 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

List, Christian and Pettit, P., Group Agency: The Possibility, Design, and Status of Corporate Agents. Oxford University Press, 2011CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Londregan, John. Legislative Institutions and Ideology in Chile. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lott, John. “Political Cheating.” Public Choice 52 (1987): 169–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lott, John, and Davis, Michael. “A Critical Review and Extension of the Political Shirking Literature.” Public Choice 74 (1992): 461–84.Google Scholar

Lott, John, and Reed, Robert. “Shirking and Sorting in a Model of Finite Lived Politicians.” Public Choice 61 (1989): 75–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lupia, Arthur. “Shortcuts versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California’ Insurance Reform Elections.” American Political Science Review 88 (1994): 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lupia, Arthur, and McCubbins, Mathew D.. The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know?New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.Google Scholar

Lynch, G. Patrick. “Protecting Individual Rights through a Federal System: James Buchanan’s View of Federalism.” Publius 34, no. 4 (2004): 153–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Macartan, Humphreys and Laver, Michael. Spatial Models, Cognitive Metrics, and Majority Rule Equilibria. British Journal of Political Science 40 (2010): 11–30Google Scholar

Machiavelli, Nicolo. The Prince. Translated by Ricci, Luigi. New York: Oxford University Press, 1952.Google Scholar

Mackie, Gerald. Democracy Defended. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004.Google Scholar

Maestripieri, Dario. Machiavellian Intelligence: How Rhesus Macaques and Humans Have Conquered the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Marcus, George E. “The Structure of Emotional Response: 1984 Presidential Candidates.” American Political Science Review 82 (1988): 737–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Martin, Lanny and Vanberg, Georg. Parliaments and Coalitions: The Role of Legislatures in Multiparty Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mascart, Jean, La vie et les travaux du chevalier Jean-Charles de Borda (1733–1799): Épisodes de la vie scientifique au XVIIIe siècle, Bibliothèque de la revue d’histoire maritime (in French) (2nd ed.), Presses de l’Université de Paris-Sorbonne, 2000.

Mas-Collel, Andreu, Whinston, Michael Dennis, and Green, Jerry R.. Microeconomic TheoryOxford University Press, 1995.Google Scholar

Matsusaka, John and Palda, Filip. “The Downsian Voter Meets the Ecological Fallacy.” Public Choice 77 (1993): 855–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Matsusaka, John, and Palda, Filip. “Voter Turnout: How Much Can We Explain?” Public Choice 98, no. 3 (1999): 431–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mauro, Martin J. “Strikes as a Result of Imperfect Information.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 35 (July 1982): 522–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

May, K. O. “A Set of Independent, Necessary, and Sufficient Conditions for Simple Majority Decision.” Econometrica 20 (1952): 680–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McCubbins, Mathew and Schwartz, Thomas. “Police Patrols and Fire Alarms.” American Journal of Political Science 28 (1984): 165–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McKelvey, Richard. “General Conditions for Global Intransitivities in Formal Voting Models.” Econometrica 47 (1976a): 1085–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McKelvey, Richard. “Intransitivities in Multidimensional Voting Bodies and Some Implications for Agenda Control.” Journal of Economic Theory 30 (1976b): 283–314.Google Scholar

McKelvey, Richard. “Covering, Dominance, and Institution-Free Properties of Social Choice.” American Political Science Review 30 (1986): 283–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McKelvey, Richard, and Ordshook, Peter C.. “Vote trading: An experimental study.” Public Choice 35 (1980): 151–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McKelvey, Richard, and Ordshook, Peter C.. “Sequential Elections with Limited Information.” American Journal of Political Science 29 (1985): 480–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McKelvey, Richard, and Schofield, Norman. “Structural Instability of the Core.” Journal of Mathematical Economics 15 (1986): 179–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McKelvey, Richard, and Schofield, Norman. “Generalized Symmetry Conditions at a Core Point’’ Econometrica 55 (July 1987): 923–933. Reprinted in Positive Changes in Political Science: The Legacy of Richard D.McKelvey’s Writings, edited by J.Alt, J.Aldrich and A.Lupia, 281–293. University of Michigan Press, September, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McLean, Iain. “The first golden age of social choice 1784 – 1803.” In Social choice, welfare, and ethics: proceedings of the 8th International Symposium in Economic Theory and Econometrics, edited by Barnett, W., Moulin, H., Salles, M., and Schofield, N., 13–33. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.Google Scholar

McLean, Iain. “The Reasonableness of Independence.”Oxford: Nuffeld College Politics Working Paper, # 2003 W6 (2003).Google Scholar

McLean, Iain, and Hewitt, F.. Condorcet: foundations of social choice and political theory, edited, translated, and intro by Edward Elgar, 1994.

McLean, Iain, and London, J.. “The Borda and Condorcet Principles: Three Medieval Applications.” Social Choice and Welfare 7 (1990): 99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McLean, Iain, and London, J.. “Ramon Lull and the theory of voting.” Studia Lulliana 32, no. 1 (1992): 21–37.Google Scholar

McLean, Iain, and Urken, Arnold. “Did Jefferson or Madison understand Condorcet’s theory of social choice?” Public Choice 73 (1992): 445–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McLean, Iain, and Urken, Arnold, eds and translators. Classics of Social Choice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1995. 113–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Meirowitz, Adam. “Informational Party Primaries and Strategic Ambiguity.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 17 (2005): 107–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Melton, James. Do Parties’ Ideological Positions Matter? The Effects of Alienation and Indifference on Individuals’ Turnout Decisions. PhD Thesis, Department of Political Science, University of Illinois, 2009.Google Scholar

Mencken, Henry Louis. A Little Book in C Major. New York: John Lane Company, 1916.Google Scholar

Mencken, Henry Louis. Notes on Democracy. New York: Alfred Knopf, 1926.Google Scholar

Merolla, Jennifer, Munger, Michael, and Tofias, Michael. “In Play: A Commentary on the Strategies in the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election.” Public Choice 123 (2005): 19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Merrifield, J. “The Institutional and Political Factors that Influence Voter Turnout.” Public Choice 77, no. 3 (1993): 657–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Merrill, Samuel and Grofman, Bernard. A Unified Theory of Voting: Directional and Proximity Spatial Models. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Miller, Nicholas. “A New Solution Set for Tournaments and Majority Voting: Further Graph Theoretical Approaches to the Theory of Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 24 (1980): 68–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Miller, Nicholas. Committees, Agendas, and Voting. Chur, Switzerland, 1980.Google Scholar

Miller, Warren E. and Stokes, Donald F.. “Constituency Influence in Congress.” American Political Science Review 57 (1963): 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mises, Ludwig. Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1949.Google Scholar

Monroe, Burt L. “Fully Proportional Representation.” American Political Science Review 89 (1995): 925–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat Baron de. The Spirit of the Laws. Translated by Cohler, Anne M., Miller, Basia Carolyn, and Stone, Harold Samuel. Cambridge University Press, 1989.Google Scholar

Moore, G.E. Principia Ethica. Cambridge University Press, 1903

Morton, Rebecca. “Groups in Rational Turnout Models.” American Journal of Political Science 35 (1991): 758–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Morton, Rebecca. Methods and Models: A Guide to the Empirical Analysis of Formal Models in Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moulton, Gary E. Editor. The Definitive Journals of Lewis and Clark. Volume 8: Down the Columbia to Fort Clatsop. Volume 6. Lincoln, NE: Bison Books, 1990

Mueller, Dennis. Public Choice II. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989.Google Scholar

Mueller, Dennis. Constitutional Democracy. London: Oxford University Press, 2000.Google Scholar

Mueller, Dennis. Public Choice III. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Munger, K. and Harris, S.J.. “Effects of an observer on handwashing in a public restroom.” Perceptual and Motor Skills 69 (1989): 733–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Munger, K. and Harris, S.J.. The Effects of Compulsory Voting: A Natural Experiment in Chile. Working Paper, New York University, Department of Political Science, 2013.Google Scholar

Munger, Michael. Analyzing Policy: Choices, Conflict and Practice. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2000.Google Scholar

Munger, Michael. “Euvoluntary or Not, Exchange is Just.” Social Philosophy and Policy 28, no. 2 (2011): 192–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Munger, Michael. “Coercion, the State, and the Obligations of Citizenship.” Public Choice 152 (2012): 415–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Munger, Michael. Public Choice. International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier Publishing, 2014.Google Scholar

Muravyov, S.V., and Marinushkina, I.A.. “Intransitivity in multiple solutions of Kemeny Ranking Problem.” Journal of Physics: Conference Series 459 (2013), .

Myerson, Roger. Game Theory: Analysis of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991.Google Scholar

Nagel, Thomas. The Last Word. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.Google Scholar

Nagler, Jonathan. “The Effect of Registration Laws and Education on U.S. Voter Turnout.” American Political Science Review 85 (1991): 1393–1406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nash, John. “Equilibrium Points in N-Person Games.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 36 (1950): 48–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Nelson, Douglas and Silberberg, Eugene. “Ideology and Legislator Shirking.” Economic Inquiry 25 (1987): 15–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Will to Power: An Attempt at the Revaluation of All Values. Peter Gast, et al., eds. Berlin: C. G. Naumann, 1901.

Niou, Emerson. “Strategic Voting under Plurality and Runoff Rules,” Journal of Theoretical Politics 13, no. 2 (2001): 209–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Niou, Emerson, and Kselman, Dan. “Protest Voting: A Theory of Voter Signaling,” Public Choice 148, no. 3–4 (June 2010): 395–418.Google Scholar

Niou, Emerson, and Ordeshook, Peter. “Universalism in Congress.” American Journal of Political Science 29 (1985): 246–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nitzan, Shmuel. Collective Preference and Choice. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010.Google Scholar

Nitzan, Shmuel, and Paroush, Jacob. Collective Decision Making: An Economic Outlook. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985.Google Scholar

North, Douglass. Structure and Change in Economic History. New York: Norton, 1981.Google Scholar

North, Douglass. Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

North, Douglass, Wallis, John Joseph and Weingast, Barry. Violence and Social Orders: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Recorded Human History. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Olson, Mancur. The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965.Google Scholar

Olson, Mancur. The Rise and Decline of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation, and Social Rigidities. Yale University Press, 1982.Google Scholar

Olson, Mancur. “Dictatorship, Democracy, and Development.” American Political Science Review 87, no. 3 (1993): 567–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Olson, Mancur. Power and Prosperity: Outgrowing Communist and Capitalist Dictatorships. London: Oxford University Press, 2000.Google Scholar

Olson, Mancur, and McGuire, Martin “The Economics of Autocracy and Majority Rule: The Invisible Hand and the Use of Force.” The Journal of Economic Literature 34, no. 1 (1996): 72–96.Google Scholar

Ordeshook, Peter. Theory of the Electoral Process. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Political Science, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, 1969.Google Scholar

Ordeshook, Peter. Game Theory and Political Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989.Google Scholar

Ordeshook, Peter. “Engineering or Science: What Is the Study of Politics?” Critical Review 9, no. 1–2 (1995): 175–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Osborne, Martin J., and Rubinstein, Ariel. A Course in Game Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1994.Google Scholar

Ostrom, E.Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005.Google Scholar

Ostrom, E. “Building trust to solve commons dilemmas: taking small steps to test an evolving theory.” In Games, groups, and the global good, edited by Levi, S.A., 207–228. New York: Springer, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Padley, Steve. Key Concepts in Contemporary Literature. Palgrave MacMillan, 2001.Google Scholar

Palfrey, Thomas, and Rosenthal, Howard. “A Strategic Calculus of Voting.” Public Choice 41 (1983): 7–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Palfrey, Thomas, and Rosenthal, Howard. “Voter Participation and Strategic Uncertainty.” American Political Science Review 79 (1985): 62–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Parker, Glenn. Institutional Change, Discretion, and the Making of Modern Congress. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Parker, Glenn. Self-Policing in Politics: The Political Economy of Reputational Controls on Politicians. Princeton University Press, 2004.Google Scholar

Parks, Robert. “Further Results on Path Independence: Quasi-Transitivity and Social Choice.” Public Choice 26 (1976): 75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Patty, John W. “Incommensurability and Issue Voting.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 19 (2007): 115–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Patty, John W. “Arguments-Based Collective Choice.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 20 (2008): 379–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Peltzman, Sam. “An Economic Interpretation of the History of Congressional Voting in the Twentieth Century.” American Economic Review 75, no. 4 (1985): 656–675.Google Scholar

Pintor, Rafael Lopez, Gratschew, Maria, and Sullivan, Kate. “Voter Turnout Rates from a Comparative Perspective.” In Turnout Rates: A Global Perspective. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, 2002.Google Scholar

Plato, . “The Republic.” In Great Dialogues of Plato, translated by Rouse, W H. D. edited by E, Warmington, H. and Rouse, P G.. New York: New English Library (Mentor), 1956.Google Scholar

Plott, Charles. “A Notion of Equilibrium and Its Possibility under Majority Rule.” American Economic Review 57 (1967): 787–806.Google Scholar

Plott, Charles. “Ethics, Social Choice Theory, and the Theory of Economic Policy.” Journal of Mathematical Sociology 2 (1972): 181–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Plott, Charles. “Path Independence, Rationality, and Social Choice.” Econometrica 41 (1973): 1075–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Plott, Charles. “Axiomatic Social Choice Theory: An Overview and Interpretation.” American Journal of Political Science 20 (1976): 511–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Plott, Charles. “Will Economics become an Experimental Science?” Southern Economic Journal 57 (1991): 901–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Plott, Charles, and Levine, M.. “A Model of Agenda Influence on Committee Decisions.” American Economic Review 68 (1978): 146–60.Google Scholar

Plutarch, . Parallel Lives of the Nobel Greeks and Romans, edited or translated by Clough, AH, Dryden, J., and Atlas, James. Cambridge University Press, 2001.Google Scholar

Polanyi, Michael. Personal Knowledge. London: Routledge, 1958.Google Scholar

Poole, Keith, and Rosenthal, Howard. “The Polarization of American Politics.” Journal of Politics 46 (1984): 1061–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Poole, Keith, and Rosenthal, Howard. “Patterns of Congressional Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 35 (1991): 228–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Popkin, Samuel. The Rational Peasant: The Political Economy of Rural Society in Vietnam. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979.Google Scholar

Popkin, Samuel. The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.Google Scholar

Pzeworksi, Adam. States and Markets: A Primer in Political Economy. London: Cambridge University Press, 2003.Google Scholar

Rabinowitz, George. “On the Nature of Political Issues: Insights from a Spatial Analysis.” American Journal of Political Science 22 (1978): 793–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rabinowitz, George, and Macdonald, Stuart. “A Directional Theory of Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review 83 (1989): 93–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rader, Trout. “The Existence of a Utility Function to Represent Preferences.” Review of Economic Studies (1963).

Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971.Google Scholar

Riker, William. “Voting and the Summation of Preferences: An Interpretative Bibliographical Review of Selected Developments during the Last Decade.” American Political Science Review 55 (1961): 900–911.Google Scholar

Riker, William . The Theory of Political Coalitions. New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1963.Google Scholar