works
Steven J. Brams, Michael W. Hansen, and Michael E. Orrison Dead heat: The 2006 public choice society election article In 2006, the Public Choice Society chose a new president using approval voting. There were five candidates, and the election was extremely close. We indicate the sources of support of the different candidates, based in part on spectral analysis, by voters who cast between one and five votes. Using preference information that was also gathered, we show that two candidates different from the approval voting winner, including the apparent Condorcet winner, might have won under different voting systems. Because most voters did not indicate their complete preference rankings, however, these differences are hardly robust, especially since the outcome was essentially a dead heat. © Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2006.

Dead heat: The 2006 public choice society election

Steven J. Brams, Michael W. Hansen, and Michael E. Orrison

Public Choice, vol. 128, no. 3, 2006, pp. 361–366

Abstract

In 2006, the Public Choice Society chose a new president using approval voting. There were five candidates, and the election was extremely close. We indicate the sources of support of the different candidates, based in part on spectral analysis, by voters who cast between one and five votes. Using preference information that was also gathered, we show that two candidates different from the approval voting winner, including the apparent Condorcet winner, might have won under different voting systems. Because most voters did not indicate their complete preference rankings, however, these differences are hardly robust, especially since the outcome was essentially a dead heat. © Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2006.

PDF

First page of PDF