Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-23T13:30:22.696Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Farquharson and Fenno: Sophisticated Voting and Home Style

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 1985

Arthur Denzau ,
William Riker  and
Kenneth Shepsle
Arthur Denzau
Affiliation:
Washington University
William Riker
Affiliation:
University of Rochester
Kenneth Shepsle
Affiliation:
Washington University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article is aimed at integrating two kinds of analysis of legislators' calculations of advantage. We assume that legislators operate in two arenas, in the legislative arena itself, where their calculations of advantage concern simply their effectiveness in voting (Farquharson), and in the electoral arena, where their calculations concern the rewards for their position-taking as well as their effectiveness (Fenno). Our analysis is introduced by an interpretation of voting on the Powell amendment, 1956, when some legislators apparently voted strategically and others, equally able to do so, still did not. We then develop an expected utility model of voting that accounts for such divergent choices in terms of legislators' individual beliefs about the distribution of opinions in the legislature (Farquharson) and in their constituencies (Fenno). We conclude with an analysis of the Nash equilibria of choices to vote strategically or nonstrategically.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 79 , Issue 4 , December 1985 , pp. 1117 - 1134
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1985

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

Arrow, K.J. Social choice and individual values. New York: Wiley, 1951.Google Scholar
Banks, J.S. Sophisticated voting outcomes and agenda control. Pasadena, Calif.: California Institute of Technology. Social Science Working Paper No. 524, 1984.Google Scholar
Black, D., & Newing, R.A. Committee decisions with complementary valuation. London: William Hodge, 1951.Google Scholar
Blydenburgh, J.C. The closed rule and the paradox of voting. Journal of Politics, 1971, 33, 57–71.10.2307/2128532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, L. Cyclic sets in multidimensional voting models. Journal of Economic Theory, 1979, 20, 1–12.10.1016/0022-0531(79)90059-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denzau, A.T., & Mackay, R.J. Structure induced equilibrium and perfect foresight expectations. American Journal of Political Science, 1981, 25, 762–779.10.2307/2110762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denzau, A.T., & Mackay, R.J. The gate keeping and monopoly power of committees: An analysis of sincere and sophisticated behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 1983,27, 740–761.10.2307/2110891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, A. An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper & Row, 1957.Google Scholar
Enelow, J.M. Saving amendments, killer amendments, and a new theory of congressional voting. Unpublished manuscript. Stony Brook: State University of New York, 1982.Google Scholar
Enelow, J.M., & Hinich, M.J. Voting one issue at a time: The question of voter forecasts. American Political Science Review, 1983, 77, 435–446.10.2307/1958927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enelow, J.M., & Hinich, M.J. The spatial analysis of elections. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984.Google Scholar
Enelow, J.M., & Koehler, D.H. The amendment in legislative strategy: Sophisticated voting in the U.S. Congress. Journal of Politics, 1980, 42, 396–413.10.2307/2130466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farquharson, R. Theory of voting. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1969.Google Scholar
Fenno, R.F. Home style. Boston: Little Brown, 1978.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, J. A., Fiorina, M.P., & McKelvey, R.D. A theory of legislative behavior on divisible policy. Unpublished manuscript. Pasadena, Calif.: California Institute of Technology, 1981.Google Scholar
Fiorina, M.P. Representatives, roll calls, and constituencies. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1974.Google Scholar
Fiorina, M.P. Some observations of policy relevant models of legislative decision making. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, 1983.Google Scholar
Fiorina, M.P., & Noll, R.G. Voters, legislators and bureaucracy: A rational choice perspective on the growth of bureaucracy. Journal of Public Economics, 1978, 9, 239–254.10.1016/0047-2727(78)90045-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbard, A. Manipulation of voting schemes: A general result. Econometrica, 1973, 41, 587–601.10.2307/1914083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gretlein, R.J. Dominance elimination procedures of finite alternative games. Unpublished manuscript. Pittsburgh: Carnegie-Mellon University, 1980.Google Scholar
Groves, T., & Ledyard, J. Optimal allocation of public goods: A solution to the “free rider” problem. Econometrica, 1977, 45, 783–809.Google Scholar
Harlow, R.V. The history of legislative methods in the period before 1825. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1917.Google Scholar
Kelly, J.S. Arrow impossibility theorems. New York: Academic Press, 1978.Google Scholar
Kramer, G.H. Sophisticated voting over multidimensional choice space. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 1972, 2, 165–180.Google Scholar
Kramer, G.H. A dynamical model of political equilibrium. Journal of Economic Theory, 1977, 16, 310–334.10.1016/0022-0531(77)90011-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, S. Pairwise symmetry conditions for voting equilibria. International Journal of Game Theory, 1980, 9, 141–156.10.1007/BF01781369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, D. Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
McKelvey, R.D. Intransitivities in multidimensional voting models and some implications for agenda control. Journal of Economic Theory, 1976, 2, 472–482.10.1016/0022-0531(76)90040-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKelvey, R.D. General conditions for global intransitivities in formal voting models. Econometrica, 1979, 47, 1085–1111.10.2307/1911951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKelvey, R.D. Covering, dominance, and institution free properties of social choice. Unpublished manuscript. Pasadena, Calif.: California Institute of Technology, 1983.Google Scholar
McKelvey, R.D., & Niemi, R.G. A multistage game representation of sophisticated voting for binary procedures. Journal of Economic Theory, 1978,18, 1–22.Google Scholar
McKelvey, R.D., & Wendell, R. Voting equilibria in multidimensional choice spaces. Mathematics of Operations Research, 1976, 1, 144–158.Google Scholar
Miller, N.R. A new solution set for tournaments and majority voting. American Journal of Political Science, 1980, 24, 68–96.10.2307/2110925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plott, C.R. A notion of equilibrium and its possibility under majority rule. American Economic Review, 1967, 67, 787–806.Google Scholar
Riker, W.H. The theory of political coalitions. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1962.Google Scholar
Riker, W.H. Arrow's theorem and some examples of the paradox of voting. In Claunch, J. M. (Ed.). Mathematical applications in political science. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1965.Google Scholar
Riker, W.H. Liberalism against populism. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1982.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P. Arrow's mathematical politics. In Hook, S. (Ed.). Human values and economic policy. New York: New York University Press, 1967, pp. 41–53.Google Scholar
Satterthwaite, M. Strategy proofness and Arrow's conditions. Journal of Economic Theory, 1975, 10, 187–217.Google Scholar
Schofield, N. Instability of simple dynamic games. Review of Economic Studies, 1978, 45, 575–594.Google Scholar
Sen, A.K. A possibility theorem on majority decisions. Econometrica, 1966, 34, 491–499.Google Scholar
Sen, A. Collective choice and welfare. San Francisco: Holden-Day, 1970.Google Scholar
Shepsle, K.A. Institutional arrangements and equilibrium in multidimensional voting models. American Journal of Political Science, 1979,23, 27–60.Google Scholar
Shepsle, K.A. Institutional equilibrium and equilibrium institutions. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, 1983.Google Scholar
Shepsle, K. A., & Weingast, B. R. Structure-induced equilibrium and legislative choice. Public Choice, 1981, 37, 503–519.10.1007/BF00133748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepsle, K. A., & Weingast, B. R. Uncovered sets and sophisticated voting outcomes with implications for agenda institutions. American Journal of Political Science, 1984, 28, 49–75.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.