IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-04243946.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

James M. Buchanan and Gordon Tullock on the Weaknesses of Majority Voting: A Triptych
[James M. Buchanan et Gordon Tullock à propos des faiblesses du vote majoritaire : un triptyque]

Author

Listed:
  • Julien Grandjean

    (BETA - Bureau d'Économie Théorique et Appliquée - AgroParisTech - UNISTRA - Université de Strasbourg - Université de Haute-Alsace (UHA) - Université de Haute-Alsace (UHA) Mulhouse - Colmar - UL - Université de Lorraine - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement, ENA - École Nationale d'Administration)

Abstract

This paper provides a narrative of the different but complementary accounts of James M. Buchanan and Gordon Tullock on the weaknesses of simple majority voting. The paper shows that these authors took different paths to reach the same conclusion. Buchanan used his knowledge about Knut Wicksell which he applied to an abstract framework. Tullock was inspired by his reading of Duncan Black and Anthony Downs and between 1959 and 1961 in particular, produced numerous published and unpublished works which formed the basis of his contribution to The Calculus of Consent. This book which was jointly authored by Tullock and Buchanan proposes a theoretical reflection on majority voting. The present paper examines Buchanan and Tullock's critique of majority voting and highlights the radical but overlooked contribution made by Tullock to the book and to the development of the Virginia public choice research program.

Suggested Citation

  • Julien Grandjean, 2021. "James M. Buchanan and Gordon Tullock on the Weaknesses of Majority Voting: A Triptych [James M. Buchanan et Gordon Tullock à propos des faiblesses du vote majoritaire : un triptyque]," Post-Print hal-04243946, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-04243946
    DOI: 10.4000/oeconomia.10780
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    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:hal:journl:hal-04243946. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.