Less Can Be More: Conflicting Ballot Proposals and the Highest Vote Rule

Michael D. Gilbert and Joshua M. Levine

Journal of Legal Studies, 2009, vol. 38, issue 2, pages 383-418

Abstract: This paper examines conflicting ballot proposals-two or more measures that run contrary to one another and that citizens vote on in the same election. Sometimes a majority votes in favor of more than one conflicting proposal, generating a legal impasse that courts resolve by applying the "highest vote rule." The rule upholds the proposal that received the greatest number of affirmative votes and invalidates all competing proposals, even though they also garnered majority support. Using spatial models, we show that the proposal receiving the most votes is not systematically closest to the median voter's ideal point, and consequently the rule can generate antimajoritarian outcomes. We discuss the implications of our finding, analyze and reject existing alternatives to the highest vote rule, and propose an original solution to the problem. (c) 2009 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved..

Date: 2009

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/597787 link to full text (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ucp:jlstud:v:38:y:2009:i:2:p:383-418

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLS/order1.html

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Legal Studies is edited by Eric A. Posner and Thomas J. Miles

More articles in Journal of Legal Studies from University of Chicago Press
Address: The University of Chicago Press, Journals Division, P.O. Box 37005 Chicago, IL 60637
Series data maintained by Christopher F. Baum ().