Miller, Nicholas R.2021-03-112021-03-112009-11-17Miller, N.R. Agenda trees and sincere voting: a response to Schwartz. Public Choice 145, 213–221 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-009-9562-4https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-009-9562-4http://hdl.handle.net/11603/21168Schwartz (Public Choice 136:353–377, 2008) has identified a controversy within the voting theory literature pertaining to the representation of agenda structures and the consequent definition of sincere voting. This note responds to Schwartz’s remarks by arguing that the kind of agenda tree he uses does not adequately represent some common parliamentary agendas, and that consequently his definition of sincere voting cannot always be applied.6 pagesen-USThis 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.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/s11127-009-9562-4.Text