IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/bjposi/v40y2010i01p11-30_99.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Spatial Models, Cognitive Metrics, and Majority Rule Equilibria

Author

Listed:
  • Humphreys, Macartan
  • Laver, Michael

Abstract

Long-standing results demonstrate that, if policy choices are defined in spaces with more than one dimension, majority-rule equilibrium fails to exist for a general class of smooth preference profiles. This article shows that if agents perceive political similarity and difference in ‘city block’ terms, then the dimension-by-dimension median can be a majority-rule equilibrium even in spaces with an arbitrarily large number of dimensions and it provides necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of such an equilibrium. This is important because city block preferences accord more closely with empirical research on human perception than do many smooth preferences. It implies that, if empirical research findings on human perceptions of similarity and difference extend also to perceptions of political similarity and difference, then the possibility of equilibrium under majority rule re-emerges.

Suggested Citation

  • Humphreys, Macartan & Laver, Michael, 2010. "Spatial Models, Cognitive Metrics, and Majority Rule Equilibria," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(1), pages 11-30, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:bjposi:v:40:y:2010:i:01:p:11-30_99
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0007123409990263/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Stefano Benati & Giuseppe Vittucci Marzetti, 2013. "Probabilistic spatial power indexes," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(2), pages 391-410, February.
    2. Maciel, Marcelo V. & Martins, André C.R., 2020. "Ideologically motivated biases in a multiple issues opinion model," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 553(C).
    3. Tanja Artiga González & Francesco Capozza & Georg D. Granic, 2022. "Can Cognitive Dissonance Theory Explain Action Induced Changes in Political Preferences?," CESifo Working Paper Series 9549, CESifo.
    4. Anna-Sophie Kurella & Thomas Bräuninger & Franz Urban Pappi, 2018. "Centripetal and centrifugal incentives in mixed-member proportional systems," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 30(3), pages 306-334, July.
    5. Bernard GROFMAN & Joseph GODFREY, 2014. "Aspiration Models of Committee Decision Making," Economics Working Paper from Condorcet Center for political Economy at CREM-CNRS 2014-04-ccr, Condorcet Center for political Economy.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:bjposi:v:40:y:2010:i:01:p:11-30_99. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jps .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.