The Merits of Neo-Downsian Modeling of the Alternative Vote: A Reply to Horowitz
In Professor Horowitz's rejoinders (2004, 2006) to Fraenkel and Grofman (2004, 2006a), he mischaracterizes our formal results, retreats from previous claims about the conditions for the alternative vote electoral system to generate centripetal outcomes, renders explicit his dubious assumptions...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Public choice 2007-10, Vol.133 (1/2), p.1-11 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 11 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1/2 |
| container_start_page | 1 |
| container_title | Public choice |
| container_volume | 133 |
| creator | Fraenkel, Jon Grofman, Bernard |
| description | In Professor Horowitz's rejoinders (2004, 2006) to Fraenkel and Grofman (2004, 2006a), he mischaracterizes our formal results, retreats from previous claims about the conditions for the alternative vote electoral system to generate centripetal outcomes, renders explicit his dubious assumptions about voter behavior in divided societies, and greatly exaggerates the global evidence in support of pro-moderation outcomes under the alternative vote. Here we respond to Horowitz's (2004), criticism in this journal of the formal model of Fraenkel and Grofman (2004) and to the broader defense in Horowitz (2006) of majoritarian vote pooling arrangements as means of mitigating ethnic conflict in deeply divided societies. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s11127-007-9156-y |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_59782416</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>27698165</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>27698165</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c461t-b2f1977bc7213d3ad05cc86b32eee09883785da73f49142e7b2838e5325242343</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkc1LAzEQxYMoWKt_gAchePAWzSSbTdZbqR8V6gdSvYbtdla3bDc1SS31r3eXigcvnubB_N7AvEfIMfBz4FxfBAAQmrWSZaBSttkhPVBaMg0cdkmP88QwZUS2Tw5CmHPOZWpUjzxN3pHeo69ioK6kD-jYlVs3ocobeu9mWFfNW7eILTaoI_omj9Un0lcX8ZIO6DMu6w2Njo6cd-sqfh2SvTKvAx79zD55ubmeDEds_Hh7NxyMWZGkENlUlJBpPS20ADmT-YyrojDpVApE5JkxUhs1y7UskwwSgXoqjDSopFAiETKRfXK2vbv07mOFIdpFFQqs67xBtwpWZdqIBNJ_wTYHzXVmWvD0Dzh3q_bfOljBdRuqTjsItlDhXQgeS7v01SL3Gwvcdk3YbRO2k10TdtN6TraeeYjO_xqETjMDqZLfq6ODFA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>207156768</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Merits of Neo-Downsian Modeling of the Alternative Vote: A Reply to Horowitz</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>EBSCOhost Political Science Complete</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>EBSCOhost Business Source Complete</source><creator>Fraenkel, Jon ; Grofman, Bernard</creator><creatorcontrib>Fraenkel, Jon ; Grofman, Bernard</creatorcontrib><description>In Professor Horowitz's rejoinders (2004, 2006) to Fraenkel and Grofman (2004, 2006a), he mischaracterizes our formal results, retreats from previous claims about the conditions for the alternative vote electoral system to generate centripetal outcomes, renders explicit his dubious assumptions about voter behavior in divided societies, and greatly exaggerates the global evidence in support of pro-moderation outcomes under the alternative vote. Here we respond to Horowitz's (2004), criticism in this journal of the formal model of Fraenkel and Grofman (2004) and to the broader defense in Horowitz (2006) of majoritarian vote pooling arrangements as means of mitigating ethnic conflict in deeply divided societies.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0048-5829</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-7101</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11127-007-9156-y</identifier><identifier>CODEN: PUCHBX</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer</publisher><subject>Candidates ; Comparative politics ; Conflict ; Constitutional review ; Controversy ; Elections ; Electoral Systems ; Fiji ; Minority & ethnic groups ; Minority voters ; Political candidates ; Political elections ; Political parties ; Preferences ; Public choice ; Radical parties ; Runoff elections ; Studies ; Voter behavior ; Voter turnout ; Voters ; Voting ; Voting Behavior ; Voting behaviour ; Voting paradox</subject><ispartof>Public choice, 2007-10, Vol.133 (1/2), p.1-11</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2007 Springer</rights><rights>Springer Science+Business Media, BV 2007</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c461t-b2f1977bc7213d3ad05cc86b32eee09883785da73f49142e7b2838e5325242343</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c461t-b2f1977bc7213d3ad05cc86b32eee09883785da73f49142e7b2838e5325242343</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27698165$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/27698165$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,12824,27901,27902,57992,58225</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Fraenkel, Jon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Grofman, Bernard</creatorcontrib><title>The Merits of Neo-Downsian Modeling of the Alternative Vote: A Reply to Horowitz</title><title>Public choice</title><description>In Professor Horowitz's rejoinders (2004, 2006) to Fraenkel and Grofman (2004, 2006a), he mischaracterizes our formal results, retreats from previous claims about the conditions for the alternative vote electoral system to generate centripetal outcomes, renders explicit his dubious assumptions about voter behavior in divided societies, and greatly exaggerates the global evidence in support of pro-moderation outcomes under the alternative vote. Here we respond to Horowitz's (2004), criticism in this journal of the formal model of Fraenkel and Grofman (2004) and to the broader defense in Horowitz (2006) of majoritarian vote pooling arrangements as means of mitigating ethnic conflict in deeply divided societies.</description><subject>Candidates</subject><subject>Comparative politics</subject><subject>Conflict</subject><subject>Constitutional review</subject><subject>Controversy</subject><subject>Elections</subject><subject>Electoral Systems</subject><subject>Fiji</subject><subject>Minority & ethnic groups</subject><subject>Minority voters</subject><subject>Political candidates</subject><subject>Political elections</subject><subject>Political parties</subject><subject>Preferences</subject><subject>Public choice</subject><subject>Radical parties</subject><subject>Runoff elections</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Voter behavior</subject><subject>Voter turnout</subject><subject>Voters</subject><subject>Voting</subject><subject>Voting Behavior</subject><subject>Voting behaviour</subject><subject>Voting paradox</subject><issn>0048-5829</issn><issn>1573-7101</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkc1LAzEQxYMoWKt_gAchePAWzSSbTdZbqR8V6gdSvYbtdla3bDc1SS31r3eXigcvnubB_N7AvEfIMfBz4FxfBAAQmrWSZaBSttkhPVBaMg0cdkmP88QwZUS2Tw5CmHPOZWpUjzxN3pHeo69ioK6kD-jYlVs3ocobeu9mWFfNW7eILTaoI_omj9Un0lcX8ZIO6DMu6w2Njo6cd-sqfh2SvTKvAx79zD55ubmeDEds_Hh7NxyMWZGkENlUlJBpPS20ADmT-YyrojDpVApE5JkxUhs1y7UskwwSgXoqjDSopFAiETKRfXK2vbv07mOFIdpFFQqs67xBtwpWZdqIBNJ_wTYHzXVmWvD0Dzh3q_bfOljBdRuqTjsItlDhXQgeS7v01SL3Gwvcdk3YbRO2k10TdtN6TraeeYjO_xqETjMDqZLfq6ODFA</recordid><startdate>20071001</startdate><enddate>20071001</enddate><creator>Fraenkel, Jon</creator><creator>Grofman, Bernard</creator><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>0U~</scope><scope>1-H</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DPSOV</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K8~</scope><scope>KC-</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.0</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M2L</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20071001</creationdate><title>The Merits of Neo-Downsian Modeling of the Alternative Vote: A Reply to Horowitz</title><author>Fraenkel, Jon ; Grofman, Bernard</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c461t-b2f1977bc7213d3ad05cc86b32eee09883785da73f49142e7b2838e5325242343</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Candidates</topic><topic>Comparative politics</topic><topic>Conflict</topic><topic>Constitutional review</topic><topic>Controversy</topic><topic>Elections</topic><topic>Electoral Systems</topic><topic>Fiji</topic><topic>Minority & ethnic groups</topic><topic>Minority voters</topic><topic>Political candidates</topic><topic>Political elections</topic><topic>Political parties</topic><topic>Preferences</topic><topic>Public choice</topic><topic>Radical parties</topic><topic>Runoff elections</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Voter behavior</topic><topic>Voter turnout</topic><topic>Voters</topic><topic>Voting</topic><topic>Voting Behavior</topic><topic>Voting behaviour</topic><topic>Voting paradox</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Fraenkel, Jon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Grofman, Bernard</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>Global News & ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Politics Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>DELNET Management Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Politics Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Standard</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Political Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Sociology Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Public choice</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Fraenkel, Jon</au><au>Grofman, Bernard</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Merits of Neo-Downsian Modeling of the Alternative Vote: A Reply to Horowitz</atitle><jtitle>Public choice</jtitle><date>2007-10-01</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>133</volume><issue>1/2</issue><spage>1</spage><epage>11</epage><pages>1-11</pages><issn>0048-5829</issn><eissn>1573-7101</eissn><coden>PUCHBX</coden><abstract>In Professor Horowitz's rejoinders (2004, 2006) to Fraenkel and Grofman (2004, 2006a), he mischaracterizes our formal results, retreats from previous claims about the conditions for the alternative vote electoral system to generate centripetal outcomes, renders explicit his dubious assumptions about voter behavior in divided societies, and greatly exaggerates the global evidence in support of pro-moderation outcomes under the alternative vote. Here we respond to Horowitz's (2004), criticism in this journal of the formal model of Fraenkel and Grofman (2004) and to the broader defense in Horowitz (2006) of majoritarian vote pooling arrangements as means of mitigating ethnic conflict in deeply divided societies.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer</pub><doi>10.1007/s11127-007-9156-y</doi><tpages>11</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0048-5829 |
| ispartof | Public choice, 2007-10, Vol.133 (1/2), p.1-11 |
| issn | 0048-5829 1573-7101 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_59782416 |
| source | Jstor Complete Legacy; EBSCOhost Political Science Complete; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; EBSCOhost Business Source Complete |
| subjects | Candidates Comparative politics Conflict Constitutional review Controversy Elections Electoral Systems Fiji Minority & ethnic groups Minority voters Political candidates Political elections Political parties Preferences Public choice Radical parties Runoff elections Studies Voter behavior Voter turnout Voters Voting Voting Behavior Voting behaviour Voting paradox |
| title | The Merits of Neo-Downsian Modeling of the Alternative Vote: A Reply to Horowitz |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-31T17%3A55%3A21IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Merits%20of%20Neo-Downsian%20Modeling%20of%20the%20Alternative%20Vote:%20A%20Reply%20to%20Horowitz&rft.jtitle=Public%20choice&rft.au=Fraenkel,%20Jon&rft.date=2007-10-01&rft.volume=133&rft.issue=1/2&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=11&rft.pages=1-11&rft.issn=0048-5829&rft.eissn=1573-7101&rft.coden=PUCHBX&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11127-007-9156-y&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E27698165%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=207156768&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=27698165&rfr_iscdi=true |