Vote Trading in Power-Sharing Systems: A Laboratory Investigation

Nikolas Tsakas, Dimitrios Xefteris, Nicholas Ziros
{"title":"Vote Trading in Power-Sharing Systems: A Laboratory Investigation","authors":"Nikolas Tsakas, Dimitrios Xefteris, Nicholas Ziros","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3261141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Vote trading in power-sharing systems—i.e., systems in which a voter’s utility with respect to the election’s outcome is proportional to the vote share of her favourite party—is, in theory, welfare improving. However, trading votes for money in majoritarian systems may have detrimental welfare effects, especially when voters’ preference intensities are similar (Casella et al., 2012). We use a laboratory experiment to test the effect of vote trading in each of these popular electoral systems on voter welfare and find strong evidence in support of the above intuitions: vote trading in power-sharing systems boosts aggregate welfare across all considered specifications, but it is not welfare improving in majoritarian systems. Importantly, and contrary to theoretical predictions, a substantial share of subjects consistently loses from vote trading even in power-sharing systems, indicating that its welfare effects are not unambiguous.","PeriodicalId":170831,"journal":{"name":"Public Choice: Analysis of Collective Decision-Making eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Choice: Analysis of Collective Decision-Making eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3261141","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Vote trading in power-sharing systems—i.e., systems in which a voter’s utility with respect to the election’s outcome is proportional to the vote share of her favourite party—is, in theory, welfare improving. However, trading votes for money in majoritarian systems may have detrimental welfare effects, especially when voters’ preference intensities are similar (Casella et al., 2012). We use a laboratory experiment to test the effect of vote trading in each of these popular electoral systems on voter welfare and find strong evidence in support of the above intuitions: vote trading in power-sharing systems boosts aggregate welfare across all considered specifications, but it is not welfare improving in majoritarian systems. Importantly, and contrary to theoretical predictions, a substantial share of subjects consistently loses from vote trading even in power-sharing systems, indicating that its welfare effects are not unambiguous.
权力分享系统中的投票交易:一项实验室研究
权力分享系统中的投票交易。在美国,如果选民对选举结果的效用与其所支持政党的得票比例成正比,那么从理论上讲,这种制度会改善福利。然而,在多数制度下,用选票换金钱可能会对福利产生不利影响,尤其是当选民的偏好强度相似时(Casella et al., 2012)。我们使用实验室实验来测试这些受欢迎的选举制度中的选票交易对选民福利的影响,并找到了支持上述直觉的有力证据:权力分享制度中的选票交易在所有考虑的规范中都提高了总福利,但在多数主义制度中并没有改善福利。重要的是,与理论预测相反的是,即使在权力分享制度下,也有相当一部分人一直在投票交易中失利,这表明其福利效应并非明确无疑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信