Why is Voting Habit-Forming: Evidence from Sweden

For decades, scholars of electoral behavior have noted persistence in individuals' turnout decisions and hypothesized that such persistence is the result of habit. Recent empirical studies provide persuasive evidence supporting the habitual voting hypothesis, but we still do not know why individuals develop habits for voting. One theory is that voting causes individuals' to view themselves as "voters," increasing their future probabilities of voting. Another theory asserts that voting may ease institutional barriers, making future voting less costly and changing conative attitudes towards voting. This study seeks to disentangle these two causal mechanisms by testing the habitual voting hypothesis in Sweden. Since institutional barriers to voting are minimal in Sweden, evidence in favor of the habitual voting hypothesis will lend credence to a psychological mechanism. The opposite result will point to an institutional mechanism. Ultimately, habitual voting is found in Sweden, which suggests the psychological mechanism is valid

Normalized Range Voting Broadly Resists Control

We study the behavior of Range Voting and Normalized Range Voting with respect to electoral control. Electoral control encompasses attempts from an election chair to alter the structure of an election in order to change the outcome. We show that a voting system resists a case of control by proving that performing that case of control is computationally infeasible. Range Voting is a natural extension of approval voting, and Normalized Range Voting is a simple variant which alters each vote to maximize the potential impact of each voter. We show that Normalized Range Voting has among the largest number of control resistances among natural voting systems

Classification of voting algorithms for N-version software

A voting algorithm in N-version software is a crucial component that evaluates the execution of each of the N versions and determines the correct result. Obviously, the result of the voting algorithm determines the outcome of the N-version software in general. Thus, the choice of the voting algorithm is a vital issue. A lot of voting algorithms were already developed and they may be selected for implementation based on the specifics of the analysis of input data. However, the voting algorithms applied in N-version software are not classified. This article presents an overview of classic and recent voting algorithms used in N-version software and the authors' classification of the voting algorithms. Moreover, the steps of the voting algorithms are presented and the distinctive features of the voting algorithms in Nversion software are defined. © Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd

The Prospects of M-Voting Implementation in Nigeria

Since independence, an average of 50% of registered voters participates in voting [1]. Similarly, an increasing rate of apathy was observed between the electorate and the elect, which was not unconnected with lack of transparency, accountability, and probity on the part of government [2]. Thus the electorate did not see the need to subject itself to any stress. Consequently, government is very committed to implementing the forth coming elections through e-voting. This paper proposes the prospects of m-voting implementation in Nigeria through the use of mobile phones, PDAs, etc. with guaranteed security, secrecy, and convenience in a democratization process. It also reviews the level of adoption of GSM in Nigeria, the implication of voting through the GSM, and finally introducing m-voting innovation in the voting process to increase voters’ access and participation rate in election

Block Trading, Ownership Structure, and the Value of Corporate Votes

This paper shows that open market block trading can provide a link between private benefits of control enjoyed by large shareholders and the ?voting premium?, i.e. the price difference between voting and non-voting shares. We first demonstrate in a microstructure model with informed traders and short-selling constraint that the trading activity of blockholders translates into a spread between the prices of voting and non-voting shares. In contrast to the extant theory, this model can explain the voting premium in the absence of corporate takeovers. In the empirical part of the paper, we show for a comprehensive sample of German dual-class companies that large trades occur more often in voting shares than in non-voting shares, and that the block trading activity in voting shares is strongly correlated with the voting premium. Moreover, the effect of the ownership structure on the voting premium becomes insignificant once we control for the block trading activity in voting shares. --

Utilitarian Collective Choice and Voting

In his seminal Social Choice and Individual Values, Kenneth Arrow stated that his theory applies to voting. Many voting theorists have been convinced that, on account of Arrow’s theorem, all voting methods must be seriously flawed. Arrow’s theory is strictly ordinal, the cardinal aggregation of preferences being explicitly rejected. In this paper I point out that all voting methods are cardinal and therefore outside the reach of Arrow’s result. Parallel to Arrow’s ordinal approach, there evolved a consistent cardinal theory of collective choice. This theory, most prominently associated with the work of Harsanyi, continued the older utilitarian tradition in a more formal style. The purpose of this paper is to show that various derivations of utilitarian SWFs can also be used to derive utilitarian voting (UV). By this I mean a voting rule that allows the voter to score each alternative in accordance with a given scale. UV-k indicates a scale with k distinct values. The general theory leaves k to be determined on pragmatic grounds. A (1,0) scale gives approval voting. I prefer the scale (1,0,-1) and refer to the resulting voting rule as evaluative voting. A conclusion of the paper is that the defects of conventional voting methods result not from Arrow’s theorem, but rather from restrictions imposed on voters’ expression of their preferences. The analysis is extended to strategic voting, utilizing a novel set of assumptions regarding voter behavior

On the Possibility of Democracy and Rational Collective Choice

The paper challenges the 'orthodox doctrine' of collective choice theory according to which Arrow’s 'general possibility theorem' precludes rational decision procedures generally and implies that in particular all voting procedures must be flawed. I point out that all voting procedures are cardinal and that Arrow’s result, based on preference orderings cannot apply to them. All voting procedures that have been proposed, with the exception of approval voting, involve restrictions on voters expressions of their preferences. These restrictions, not any general impossibility, are the cause of various well known pathologies. In the class of unrestricted voting procedures I favor 'evaluative voting' under which a voter can vote for or against any alternative, or abstain. I give a historical/conceptual analysis of the origins of theorists’ aversion to cardinal analysis in collective choice and voting theories