Election inversions, coalitions and proportional representation: Examples from Danish elections

Kurrild-Klitgaard, Peter (2011): Election inversions, coalitions and proportional representation: Examples from Danish elections.

Abstract

When collective choices are made in more than one round and with dif¬ferent groups of decision-makers, so-called election inversions may take place, where each group have different majority outcomes. We identify two ver¬sions of such compound majority paradoxes specifically, but not ex¬clu¬si¬ve¬ly, relevant for systems of proportional representation with governing coalitions: The “Threshold Paradox” and the “Federal Paradox”. The empirical relevance of the two paradoxes is illustrated with examples from three Danish elections (1971, 1990, 2011), where a majority of the voters voted for one bloc of parties but where a majority of the seats fell to another.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Social choice; voting paradoxes; electoral systems; election inversions
• Subjects: D - Microeconomics > D7 - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making > D71 - Social Choice ; Clubs ; Committees ; Associations; D - Microeconomics > D7 - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making > D72 - Political Processes: Rent-Seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior

References

Arrow, K. J. ([1951] 1963). Social choice and individual values (2. ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press.

Benoit, K. (2000). Which electoral formula is the most proportional? A new look with new evidence. Political Analysis 8(4), 381-388.

Brams, S. J., Kilgour, D. M., & Zwicker, W. S. (1998). The paradox of multiple elections. Social Choice and Welfare 15, 211-236.

Condorcet, M. J. A. N. C. d. ([1785] 1994). An essay on the application of probability theory to plurality decision-making. In I. McLean & F. Hewitt (Eds.), Condorcet: Foundations of social choice and political theory (pp. 120-156). Aldershot: Edward Elgar, translated extracts.

Condorcet, M. J. A. N. C. d. ([1789] 1994). On the form of elections. In I. McLean & F. Hewitt (Eds.), Condorcet: Foundations of social choice and political theory (pp. 169-189). Aldershot: Edward Elgar.

Dahl, R. A. (1956). A preface to democratic theory. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Elklit, J. (1993). Simpler than its reputation: The electoral system in Denmark since 1920. Electoral Studies 12(1), 41-57.

Elklit, J. (2002). The politics of electoral system development and change: The Danish case. In B. Grofman & A. Lijphart (Eds.), The evolution of electoral and party systems in the Nordic countries (pp. 15-66). New York: Agathon Press.

Elklit, J. (2006). Danske valgsystemer: Fordelingsmetoder, spærreregler, analyseredskaber (10 ed.). Århus: Institut for Statskundskab, Aarhus Universitet.

Elklit, J. (2008). Valgkredsreformen 2006 og folketingsvalget 2007: En første evaluering. In K. Kosiara-Pedersen & P. Kurrild-Klitgaard (Eds.), Partier og partisystemer i forandring: Festskrift til Lars Bille (pp. 233-249). Odense: Syddansk Universitetsforlag.

Farrell, D. M. (2001). Electoral systems: A comparative introduction. London: Palgrave.

Feix, M., Lepelley, D., Merlin, V. R., & Rouet, J.-L. (2004). The probability of conflicts in a U.S. presidential type election. Economic Theory 23(2), 227-257.

Gaines, B. J. (2001). Popular myths about popular vote - Electoral College myths. PS: Political Science & Politics 34(7), 71-76.

Gehrlein, W. V. (1983). Condorcet's paradox. Theory and Decision 15, 161-197.

Grofman, B. & Lijphart, A. (Eds.) (2002). The evolution of electoral and party systems in the Nordic countries. New York: Agathon Press.

Härd, S. (2000). Arbitrary democracy. In N. Berggren, N. Karlson, & J. Nergelius (Eds.), Why constitutions matter (pp. 137-166). Stockholm: City University Press.

Kurrild-Klitgaard, P. (1999). Demokrati, magt og kollektive valgs rationalitet. In U. Jakobsen & M. Kelstrup (Eds.), Demokrati og demokratisering: Begreber og teorier (pp. 238-282). København: Politiske Studier.

Kurrild-Klitgaard, P. (2001). An empirical example of the Condorcet paradox of voting in a large electorate. Public Choice 107(1-2), 135-145.

Kurrild-Klitgaard, P. (2005). Individ, stat og marked: Studier i rationalitet og politik. København: Forlaget Politiske Studier.

Kurrild-Klitgaard, P. (2008). Voting paradoxes under proportional representation: Evidence from eight Danish elections. Scandinavian Political Studies 31(3), 242-267.

Kurrild-Klitgaard, P., Klemmensen, R., & Pedersen, M. N. (2008). Højre, venstre eller midte? Et empirisk perspektiv på partirummet i dansk politik. In K. Kosiara-Pedersen & P. Kurrild-Klitgaard (Eds.), Partier og partisystemer i forandring: Festskrift til Lars Bille (pp. 185-213). Odense: Syddansk Universitetsforlag.

Laakso, M. & Taagepera, R. (1978). Proportional representation in Scandinavia: Implications for Finland. Scandinavian Political Studies 1(1), 43-60.

Laffond, G. & Lainé, J. (2008). The budget-voting paradox. Theory and Decision 64(4), 447-478.

Lagerspetz, E. (1996). Paradoxes and representation. Electoral Studies 15(1), 83-92.

Laver, M. & Schofield, N. ([1998] 1990). Multiparty government: The politics of coalition in Europe. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.

Laver, M. & Shepsle, K. A. (1996). Making and breaking governments: Cabinets and legislatures in parliamentary democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Longley, L. D. & Peirce, N. R. (1999). The Electoral College primer 2000. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Miller, N. R. (2011a). Election Inversions by the U.S. Electoral College. Paper presented at the 2011 Annual Meeting of the Public Choice Society, San Antonio, Texas, March 10-13, 2011.

Miller, N. R. (2011b). Why the Electoral College is good for political science (and public choice). Public Choice 150, 1-25.

Nurmi, H. (1987). Comparing voting systems. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Nurmi, H. (1997a). Compound majority complexes and proportional representation. European Journal of Political Economy 13, 443-454.

Nurmi, H. (1997b). Referendum design: An exercise in applied social choice theory. Scandinavian Political Studies 20(1), 33-52.

Nurmi, H. (1999). Voting paradoxes and how to deal with them. Berlin: Springer.

Riker, W. H. (1982). Liberalism against populism: A confrontation between the theory of democracy and the theory of social choice. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.

Skjæveland, A. (2003). Government formation in Denmark 1953-1998. Aarhus: Politica.

Van Deemen, A. M. A. (1993). Paradoxes of voting in list systems of proportional representation. Electoral Studies 12(3), 234-241.

Van Deemen, A. M. A. (1998). The Condorcet Paradox: A Review of Research Results. Paper presented at Workshop on Empirical Social Choice, 1998 ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops, 23-28 March 1998, Warwick University.

Van Deemen, A. M. A. & Vergunst, N. P. (1998). Empirical evidence of paradoxes of voting in Dutch elections. Public Choice 97(3), 475-490.