AGENDAS AND SINCERITY: A SECOND RESPONSE TO SCHWARTZ
| dc.contributor.author | Miller, Nicholas R. | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-03-11T19:10:01Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2021-03-11T19:10:01Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2010-08-27 | |
| dc.description.abstract | An Ordeshook-Schwartz agenda tree requires a voting theorist to assign a unique “ostensive alternative” to each node, but under some non-pairwise agendas there is no evident principle by which to do this. Therefore Ordeshook-Schwartz sincere voting is not clearly defined under all types of agendas. Farquharson-style agenda trees sidestep this problem and allow one or more definitions of sincere voting under every type of agenda. | en_US |
| dc.description.uri | https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11127-010-9704-8 | en_US |
| dc.format.extent | 6 pages | en_US |
| dc.genre | journal articles postprints | en_US |
| dc.identifier | doi:10.13016/m2cunx-7nr7 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Miller, N.R. Agendas and sincerity: a second response to Schwartz. Public Choice 145, 575–579 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-010-9704-8 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-010-9704-8 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11603/21169 | |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
| dc.publisher | Springer Nature | en_US |
| dc.relation.isAvailableAt | The University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC) | |
| dc.relation.ispartof | UMBC Political Science | |
| dc.relation.ispartof | UMBC Faculty Collection | |
| dc.rights | This item is likely protected under Title 17 of the U.S. Copyright Law. Unless on a Creative Commons license, for uses protected by Copyright Law, contact the copyright holder or the author. | |
| dc.rights | This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in Public Choice. The final authenticated version is available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11127-010-9704-8. | |
| dc.title | AGENDAS AND SINCERITY: A SECOND RESPONSE TO SCHWARTZ | en_US |
| dc.type | Text | en_US |