IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/pophec/v23y2024i2p125-153.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Enfranchising all subjected: A reconstruction and problematization

Author

Listed:
  • Robert E. Goodin

    (School of Philosophy, 2219Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia)

  • Gustaf Arrhenius

    (7632Institute for Futures Studies, Stockholm, Sweden
    Department of Philosophy, Stockholm University, Sweden)

Abstract

There are two classic principles for deciding who should have a right to vote on the laws, the All Affected Principle and the All Subjected Principle. This article is devoted, firstly, to providing a sympathetic reconstruction of the All Subjected Principle, identifying the most credible account of what it is to be subject to the law. Secondly, it shows that that best account still suffers some serious difficulties, which might best be resolved by treating the All Subjected Principle as a subset of the All Affected Principle with which the All Subjected Principle must in any case be supplemented.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert E. Goodin & Gustaf Arrhenius, 2024. "Enfranchising all subjected: A reconstruction and problematization," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 23(2), pages 125-153, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:pophec:v:23:y:2024:i:2:p:125-153
    DOI: 10.1177/1470594X241232023
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1470594X241232023
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1470594X241232023?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alex Green, 2021. "Three Models of Political Membership: Delineating ‘The People in Question’†," Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(2), pages 565-583.
    2. Abizadeh, Arash, 2012. "On the Demos and Its Kin: Nationalism, Democracy, and the Boundary Problem," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 106(4), pages 867-882, November.
    3. Rae, Douglas W., 1969. "Decision-Rules and Individual Values in Constitutional Choice," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 63(1), pages 40-56, March.
    4. Abraham, Kavi Joseph, 2022. "Midcentury Modern: The Emergence of Stakeholders in Democratic Practice," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 116(2), pages 631-644, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Asaf D. M. Nitzan & Shmuel I. Nitzan, 2024. "Balancing democracy: majoritarianism versus expression of preference intensity," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 200(1), pages 149-171, July.
    2. Hans Gersbach, 2004. "Fiscal Constitutions," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 3-25, March.
    3. Hillinger, Claude, 2004. "Utilitarian Collective Choice and Voting," Discussion Papers in Economics 473, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    4. Hans Gersbach & Volker Hahn & Stephan Imhof, 2013. "Tax rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 41(1), pages 19-42, June.
    5. D. Kilgour & Terrence Levesque, 1984. "The Canadian constitutional amending formula: Bargaining in the past and the future," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 457-480, January.
    6. Azrieli, Yaron & Kim, Semin, 2016. "On the self-(in)stability of weighted majority rules," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 376-389.
    7. Casella, Alessandra & Laslier, Jean-François & Macé, Antonin, 2017. "Democracy for Polarized Committees: The Tale of Blotto's Lieutenants," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 239-259.
    8. Gershkov, Alex & Moldovanu, Benny & Shi, Xianwen, 2019. "Voting on multiple issues: what to put on the ballot?," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 14(2), May.
    9. Keith L. Dougherty & Robi Ragan, 2016. "An expected utility analysis of k-majority rules," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 332-353, September.
    10. Bierbrauer, Felix & Winkelmann, Justus, 2020. "All or nothing: State capacity and optimal public goods provision," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    11. Antonin Macé & Rafael Treibich, 2021. "Inducing Cooperation through Weighted Voting and Veto Power," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 13(3), pages 70-111, August.
    12. Le Breton, Michel & Lepelley, Dominique & Macé, Antonin & Merlin, Vincent, 2017. "Le mécanisme optimal de vote au sein du conseil des représentants d’un système fédéral," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 93(1-2), pages 203-248, Mars-Juin.
    13. Josep Freixas & Montserrat Pons, 2017. "Using the Multilinear Extension to Study Some Probabilistic Power Indices," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 437-452, May.
    14. Philippe Aghion & Alberto Alesina & Francesco Trebbi, 2004. "Endogenous Political Institutions," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(2), pages 565-611.
    15. Thomas König & Thomas Bräuninger, 1998. "The Inclusiveness of European Decision Rules," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 10(1), pages 125-142, January.
    16. Hans Peter Grüner & Thomas Tröger, 2019. "Linear Voting Rules," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(6), pages 2037-2077, November.
    17. Mathias Koenig-Archibugi & Kate Macdonald, 2017. "The Role of Beneficiaries in Transnational Regulatory Processes," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 670(1), pages 36-57, March.
    18. Hans Gersbach, 2002. "Democratic Mechanisms: Double Majority Rules and Flexible Agenda Costs," CESifo Working Paper Series 749, CESifo.
    19. Giovanni Maggi & Massimo Morelli, 2006. "Self-Enforcing Voting in International Organizations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(4), pages 1137-1158, September.
    20. Marcus Pivato, 2016. "Asymptotic utilitarianism in scoring rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(2), pages 431-458, August.

    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:pophec:v:23:y:2024:i:2:p:125-153. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.