Miller, Nicholas R.2021-03-112021-03-112010-08-27Miller, N.R. Agendas and sincerity: a second response to Schwartz. Public Choice 145, 575–579 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-010-9704-8https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-010-9704-8http://hdl.handle.net/11603/21169An 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.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/s11127-010-9704-8.Text