IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/niesru/v247y2019i1pf4-f11.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Breaking the Brexit Impasse: Achieving a Fair, Legitimate and Democratic Outcome

Author

Listed:
  • Toke Aidt
  • Jagjit S. Chadha
  • Hamid Sabourian

Abstract

Unanimity on the question of UK exit from the EU is not within reach, but this does not mean that the House of Commons or the population at large can not find a way out of the current Brexit impasse that is fair and legitimate. We discuss different voting procedures which satisfy some important principles of democracy and which can select the option that can win a majority against all other alternatives in a head-to-head majority vote. We argue that strategic considerations play an important role and we propose a procedure that works well and can help break the impasse when voters act strategically. The procedure requires (1) that all options with some minimum support are on the agenda, (2) that voting takes place in multiple rounds and (3) that in each round the alternative with the least support is eliminated until in the last round only two alternatives are left and the majority winner is selected. We discuss how this procedure can be modified to take into account that some voters may vote non-strategically and how it, in practice, could be used either in the House of Commons or in a new referendum.

Suggested Citation

  • Toke Aidt & Jagjit S. Chadha & Hamid Sabourian, 2019. "Breaking the Brexit Impasse: Achieving a Fair, Legitimate and Democratic Outcome," National Institute Economic Review, National Institute of Economic and Social Research, vol. 247(1), pages 4-11, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:niesru:v:247:y:2019:i:1:p:f4-f11
    DOI: 10.1177/002795011924700103
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/002795011924700103
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/002795011924700103?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
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Brexit; Multi-stage voting; sequential elimination; Condorcet consistency; top cycle;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • P16 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Capitalist Economies - - - Capitalist Institutions; Welfare State
    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games

    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:sae:niesru:v:247:y:2019:i:1:p:f4-f11. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/niesruk.html .

    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.