Is Majority Rule Justified in Constitutional Adjudication?

Cristóbal Caviedes

Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 2021, vol. 41, issue 2, 376-406

Abstract: In this article, I challenge the use of a majority voting rule (majority rule) to declare statutes unconstitutional in many constitutional courts. To do this, I briefly present four main features of majority rule and assess whether these features (separately and jointly considered) provide definitive reasons for using this voting rule over others in constitutional adjudication. I conclude that these features do not provide such reasons either individually or taken together. This conclusion enables one to analyse whether constitutional courts should use other voting rules in constitutional adjudication, such as supermajority rules.

Keywords: collective accuracy; Condorcet Jury Theorem; constitutional adjudication; majority rule; supermajority rules (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ojls/gqaa055 (application/pdf)
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: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:oxjlsj:v:41:y:2021:i:2:p:376-406.

Access Statistics for this article

Oxford Journal of Legal Studies is currently edited by Liz Fisher, Stefan Enchelmaier, Andreas Televantos, Liora Lazarus and Jennifer Payne

More articles in Oxford Journal of Legal Studies from Oxford University Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().