IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v59y1988i1p37-50.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Centripetal forces in spatial voting: On the size of the Yolk

Author

Listed:
  • Scott Feld
  • Bernard Grofman
  • Nicholas Miller

Abstract

The yolk, the smallest circle which intersects all median lines, has been shown to be an important tool in understanding the nature of majority voting in a spatial voting context. The center of the yolk is a natural ‘center’ of the set of voter ideal points. The radius of the yolk can be used to provide bounds on the size of the feasible set of outcomes of sophisticated voting under standard amendment procedure, and on the limits of agenda manipulation and cycling when voting is sincere. We show that under many plausible conditions the yolk can be expected to be small. Thus, majority rule processes in spatial voting games will be far better behaved than has commonly been supposed, and the possible outcomes of agenda manipulations will be generally constrained. This result was first conjectured by Tullock (1967). Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 1988

Suggested Citation

  • Scott Feld & Bernard Grofman & Nicholas Miller, 1988. "Centripetal forces in spatial voting: On the size of the Yolk," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 59(1), pages 37-50, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:59:y:1988:i:1:p:37-50
    DOI: 10.1007/BF00119448
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/BF00119448
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF00119448?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Grofman, Bernard & Owen, Guillermo & Noviello, Nicholas & Glazer, Amihai, 1987. "Stability and Centrality of Legislative Choice in the Spatial Context," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 81(2), pages 539-553, June.
    2. Feld, Scott L. & Grofman, Bernard, 1988. "Ideological Consistency as a Collective Phenomenon," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 82(3), pages 773-788, September.
    3. Samuel Merrill, 1985. "A statistical model for Condorcet efficiency based on simulation under spatial model assumptions," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 389-403, January.
    4. Gordon Tullock, 1967. "The General Irrelevance of the General Impossibility Theorem," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 81(2), pages 256-270.
    5. Schofield, Norman & Grofman, Bernard & Feld, Scott L., 1988. "The Core and the Stability of Group Choice in Spatial Voting Games," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 82(1), pages 195-211, March.
    6. Norman Schofield, 1978. "Instability of Simple Dynamic Games," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 45(3), pages 575-594.
    7. Rapoport, Amnon & Golan, Esther, 1985. "Assessment of Political Power in the Israeli Knesset," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 79(3), pages 673-692, September.
    8. Chamberlin, John R. & Cohen, Michael D., 1978. "Toward Applicable Social Choice Theory: A Comparison of Social Choice Functions under Spatial Model Assumptions," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 72(4), pages 1341-1356, December.
    9. McKelvey, Richard D, 1979. "General Conditions for Global Intransitivities in Formal Voting Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(5), pages 1085-1112, September.
    10. McKelvey, Richard D. & Niemi, Richard G., 1978. "A multistage game representation of sophisticated voting for binary procedures," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 1-22, June.
    11. Scott Feld & Bernard Grofman, 1986. "Research note Partial single-peakedness: An extension and clarification," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 51(1), pages 71-80, January.
    12. McKelvey, Richard D., 1976. "Intransitivities in multidimensional voting models and some implications for agenda control," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 472-482, June.
    13. Davis, Otto A & DeGroot, Morris H & Hinich, Melvin J, 1972. "Social Preference Orderings and Majority Rule," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 40(1), pages 147-157, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Michel Le Breton & Karine Van Der Straeten, 2017. "Alliances Électorales et Gouvernementales : La Contribution de la Théorie des Jeux Coopératifs à la Science Politique," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 127(4), pages 637-736.
    2. Maravall-Rodriguez Carlos, 2006. "A Spatial Election with Common Values," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 1-19, August.
    3. Keith Dougherty & Brian Pitts & Justin Moeller & Robi Ragan, 2014. "An experimental study of the efficiency of unanimity rule and majority rule," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 359-382, March.
    4. John Bradbury & Joseph Johnson, 2006. "Do supermajority rules limit or enhance majority tyranny? evidence from the US States, 1960–1997," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 127(3), pages 429-441, June.
    5. Macartan Humphreys, 2008. "Existence of a multicameral core," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(3), pages 503-520, October.
    6. Scott L. Feld & Bernard Grofman, 1991. "Incumbency Advantage, Voter Loyalty and the Benefit of the Doubt," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 3(2), pages 115-137, April.
    7. Mathieu Martin & Zéphirin Nganmeni & Craig A. Tovey, 2016. "On the uniqueness of the yolk," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(3), pages 511-518, October.
    8. Nicholas R. Miller & Bernard Grofman & Scott L. Feld, 1989. "The Geometry of Majority Rule," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 1(4), pages 379-406, October.
    9. Tovey, Craig A., 2010. "The almost surely shrinking yolk," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 74-87, January.
    10. Mathieu Martin & Zéphirin Nganmeni & Craig A. Tovey, 2019. "Dominance in Spatial Voting with Imprecise Ideals: A New Characterization of the Yolk," THEMA Working Papers 2019-02, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    11. Banks, Jeffrey S. & Duggan, John & Le Breton, Michel, 2006. "Social choice and electoral competition in the general spatial model," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 126(1), pages 194-234, January.
    12. Keith L. Dougherty & Robi Ragan, 2024. "Borda count in a forward agenda," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 199(1), pages 27-44, April.
    13. John Bradbury & W. Crain, 2005. "Legislative district configurations and fiscal policy in American States," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 125(3), pages 385-407, December.
    14. De Donder, Philippe & Gallego, Maria, 2017. "Electoral Competition and Party Positioning," TSE Working Papers 17-760, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    15. David Koehler, 2001. "Instability and Convergence Under Simple-Majority Rule: Results from Simulation of Committee Choice in Two-Dimensional Space," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 50(4), pages 305-332, June.
    16. Keith Dougherty & Julian Edward, 2012. "Voting for Pareto optimality: a multidimensional analysis," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 151(3), pages 655-678, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tovey, Craig A., 2010. "The instability of instability of centered distributions," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 53-73, January.
    2. Scott Feld & Bernard Grofman, 1988. "The Borda count in n-dimensional issue space," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 59(2), pages 167-176, November.
    3. Tovey, Craig A., 2010. "The almost surely shrinking yolk," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 74-87, January.
    4. Tovey, Craig A., 2010. "A critique of distributional analysis in the spatial model," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 88-101, January.
    5. Scott Feld & Bernard Grofman, 1988. "Majority rule outcomes and the structure of debate in one-issue-at-a-time decision-making," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 59(3), pages 239-252, December.
    6. Daniel E. Ingberman & Robert P. Inman, 1987. "The Political Economy of Fiscal Policy," NBER Working Papers 2405, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. A. J. McGann, 2004. "The Tyranny of the Supermajority," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 16(1), pages 53-77, January.
    8. Pierre-Guillaume Méon, 2006. "Majority voting with stochastic preferences: The whims of a committee are smaller than the whims of its members," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 207-216, September.
    9. Kenneth Shepsle & Barry Weingast, 2012. "Why so much stability? Majority voting, legislative institutions, and Gordon Tullock," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 152(1), pages 83-95, July.
    10. Banks, Jeffrey S. & Duggan, John & Le Breton, Michel, 2006. "Social choice and electoral competition in the general spatial model," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 126(1), pages 194-234, January.
    11. Larry Samuelson, 1987. "A test of the revealed-preference phenomenon in congressional elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 141-169, January.
    12. Edward Wesep, 2012. "Defensive Politics," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 151(3), pages 425-444, June.
    13. Jan Sauermann, 2020. "On the instability of majority decision-making: testing the implications of the ‘chaos theorems’ in a laboratory experiment," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 88(4), pages 505-526, May.
    14. Nicholas R. Miller, 2019. "Reflections on Arrow’s theorem and voting rules," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 179(1), pages 113-124, April.
    15. Itai Sened, 1991. "Contemporary Theory of Institutions in Perspective," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 3(4), pages 379-402, October.
    16. Michel Regenwetter & James Adams & Bernard Grofman, 2002. "On the (Sample) Condorcet Efficiency of Majority Rule: An alternative view of majority cycles and social homogeneity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 153-186, September.
    17. Hervé Crès & Mich Tvede, 2001. "Proxy fights in incomplete markets: when majority voting and sidepayments are equivalent," Working Papers hal-01065004, HAL.
    18. de Groot Ruiz, Adrian & Ramer, Roald & Schram, Arthur, 2016. "Formal versus informal legislative bargaining," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 1-17.
    19. Kalandrakis, Anastassios, 2004. "A three-player dynamic majoritarian bargaining game," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 116(2), pages 294-322, June.
    20. C.Y. Cyrus Chu & Meng-Yu Liang, 2022. "Why Are All Communist Countries Dictatorial?," IEAS Working Paper : academic research 22-A002, Institute of Economics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan.

    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:kap:pubcho:v:59:y:1988:i:1:p:37-50. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.