Accessible Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter November 7, 2019

Are Referendums and Parliamentary Elections Reconcilable? The Implications of Three Voting Paradoxes

Suzanne Andrea Bloks ORCID logo

Abstract

In representative democracies, referendum voting and parliamentary elections provide two fundamentally different methods for determining the majority opinion. We use three mathematical paradoxes – so-called majority voting paradoxes – to show that referendum voting can reverse the outcome of a parliamentary election, even if the same group of voters have expressed the same preferences on the issues considered in the referendums and the parliamentary election. This insight about the systemic contrarieties between referendum voting and parliamentary elections sheds a new light on the debate about the supplementary value of referendums in representative democracies. Using this insight, we will suggest legal conditions for the implementation of referendums in representative democracies that can pre-empt the conflict between the two methods for determining the majority opinion.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Prof. Remco Nehmelman (Utrecht University) for the stimulating discussions and helpful suggestions, which have been very valuable in developing the argument of the paper. Also, I owe special thanks to Prof. Richard Bradley (LSE) and the anonymous referees of this journal for their careful reading and helpful suggestions to improve the paper.

References

Aguiar-Conraria, L. and Magalhães, P.C. (2010a). ‘How Quorum Rules Distort Referendum Outcomes: Evidence from a Pivotal Voter Model’, European Journal of Political Economy 26 (4): 541–557.Search in Google Scholar

Aguiar-Conraria, L. and Magalhães, P.C. (2010b). ‘Referendum Design, Quorum Rules and Turnout’, Public Choice 144 (1): 63–81.Search in Google Scholar

Alder, K. (2019). ‘Bundesgericht Annulliert Abstimmung zur Heiratsstrafe’, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 10th April, URL 003D (accessed on May 23, 2019)Search in Google Scholar

Anscombe, G.E.M. (1976). ‘On Frustration of the Majority by Fulfilment of the Majority’s Will’, Analysis 36 (4): 161–168.Search in Google Scholar

Arrow, K.J., Sen, A., and Suzumura, K. eds. (2002). Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare Vol. 1 (Amsterdam: Elsevier).Search in Google Scholar

Arrow, K.J., Sen, A., and Suzumura, K. eds. (2011). Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare Vol. 2 (Amsterdam: Elsevier).Search in Google Scholar

Besselink, L.F.M. (2007). ‘Constitutional Referenda in the Netherlands: A Debate in the Margin’, Electronic Journal of Comparative Law 11 (1): 1–23.Search in Google Scholar

Bloks, S.A. (2018). ‘De Wet Raadgevend Referendum Afschaffen of Verbeteren?’ [‘Abolishing or Improving the Consultative Referendum Law?’], Nederlands Juristenblad 2: 85–91.Search in Google Scholar

Blum, C. and Zuber, C.I. (2016). ‘Liquid Democracy: Potentials, Problems, and Perspectives’, Journal of Political Philosophy 24 (2): 162–182.Search in Google Scholar

Borman, T. (2017). ‘Niet-Referendabele Onderwerpen in De Wet Raadgevend Referendum’ [‘Topics that Cannot be Submitted to a Referendum in the Consultative Referendum Law’], Rechtsgeleerd Magazijn Themis 4: 173–182.Search in Google Scholar

Bovend’Eert, P. (2018). ‘How the Dutch Cannot Make up Their Minds on Accepting Referendums’, IACL-AIDC Blog, URL= (accessed on May 23rd, 2019)Search in Google Scholar

Brams, S.J., Kilgour, D.M., and Zwicker, W.S. (1998). ‘The Paradox of Multiple Elections’, Social Choice and Welfare 15 (2): 211–236.Search in Google Scholar

Breunese, H.M.B. (2013). ‘Het Referendum: Nieuwe Ronde, Nieuwe Kansen’ [‘The Referendum: New Round, New Opportunities’], Tijdschrift voor Constitutioneel Recht 4: 346–353.Search in Google Scholar

Brill, M. (2018). ‘Interactive Democracy’, Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS): 1183–1187.Search in Google Scholar

Butler, D. and Ranney, A. (1978). Referendums. A Comparative Study of Practice and Theory. (Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research).Search in Google Scholar

Cohen, M.R. and Nagel, E. (1964). An Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method. (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc.).Search in Google Scholar

Deb, R. and Kelsey, D. (1987). ‘On Constructing a Generalized Ostrogorski Paradox: Necessary and Sufficient Conditions’, Mathematical Social Sciences 14 (2): 161–174.Search in Google Scholar

Dietrich, F. and List, C. (2007). ‘Arrow’s Theorem in Judgement Aggregation’, Social Choice and Welfare 29 (1): 19–33.Search in Google Scholar

Endriss, U. (2016). ‘Judgement Aggregation’, in F. Brandt, V. Conitzer, U. Endriss, J. Lang and A.D. Procaccia (eds.). Handbook of Computational Social Choice (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 399–426Search in Google Scholar

Geiser, U. (2019). ‘Historic Verdict Could Force Swiss Re-Vote on Family Tax Breaks’, Swissinfo.ch, 10th April, URL= (accessed on May 23rd, 2019)Search in Google Scholar

Grandi, U. (2014). ‘The Common Structure of Paradoxes in Aggregation Theory’, Computing Research Repository (corr), URL= (accessed on May 20, 2019)Search in Google Scholar

Grandi, U. and Endriss, U. (2011). ‘Binary Aggregation with Integrity Constraints’, Proceedings of the Twenty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), 204–209.Search in Google Scholar

Hobolt, S.B. (2006). ‘Direct Democracy and European Integration’, Journal of European Public Policy 13 (1): 153–166.Search in Google Scholar

Kleck, D. (2019). ‘Abstimmung Annulliert: Jetzt Gibt es Zwei Möglichkeiten – Eine Wäre für die CVP Klar Besser’ [‘Referendum Overturned: Now There Are Two Options – One Would Clearly Be Better for the CVP’], Aargauer Zeitung, 11th April, URL= (accessed on May 23, 2019)Search in Google Scholar

List, C. and Pettit, P. (2002). ‘Aggregating Sets of Judgements: An Impossibility Result’, Economics and Philosophy 18 (1): 89–110.Search in Google Scholar

List, C. and Puppe, C. (2009). ‘Judgement Aggregation: A Survey’, in P. Anand, P. Pattanaik and C. Puppe (eds.). The Handbook of Rational and Social Choice (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 457–482Search in Google Scholar

North, A. (2019). ‘Swiss Courts Make Facts Matter Again’, Coda Story, 23rd April, URL= (accessed on May 23, 2019)Search in Google Scholar

Nurmi, H. (1997). ‘Referendum Design: An Exercise in Applied Social Choice Theory’, Scandinavian Political Studies 20 (1): 33–52.Search in Google Scholar

Nurmi, H. (1998). ‘Voting Paradoxes and Referenda’, Social Choice and Welfare 15 (3): 333–350.Search in Google Scholar

Nurmi, H. (1999). Voting Paradoxes and How to Deal with Them (Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer).Search in Google Scholar

Nurmi, H. and Saari, D.G. (2010). ‘Connections and Implications of the Ostrogorski Paradox for Spatial Voting Models’, in A. van Deemen (ed.). Collective Decision Making: Views from Social Choice and Game Theory (Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer), pp. 31–56Search in Google Scholar

Ostrogorksi, M. (1902). Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties. (Volume I-II, New York: Macmillan), translated by F. Clarke. Original: Ostrogorski, M. (1902). La démocratie et l’organisation des partis politiques. (Paris: Calmann-Levy).Search in Google Scholar

Pettit, P. (2012). On the People’s Terms: A Republican Theory and Model of Democracy. (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press).Search in Google Scholar

Pigozzi, G. (2006). ‘Two Aggregation Paradoxes in Social Decision Making: The Ostrogorski Paradox and the Discursive Dilemma’, Episteme 2 (2): 119–128.Search in Google Scholar

Pitkin, H.F. (1967). The Concept of Representation (Berkeley: University of California Press).Search in Google Scholar

Rae, D. and Daudt, H. (1976). ‘The Ostrogorski Paradox: A Peculiarity of Compound Majority Decision’, European Journal of Political Research 4 (4): 391–398.Search in Google Scholar

Riker, W.H. (1982). Liberalism against Populism: A Confrontation between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice. (San Francisco: W.H. Freeman).Search in Google Scholar

Saari, D. (2008). Disposing Dictators, Demystifying Voting Paradoxes. (New York: Cambridge University Press).Search in Google Scholar

Schutgens, R.J.B. (2017). ‘Referenda’, Rechtsgeleerd Magazijn Themis 4: 141.Search in Google Scholar

Simpson, E.H. (1951). ‘The Interpretation of Interaction in Contingency Tables’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 1951-Series B (Methodological): 238–241.Search in Google Scholar

Voermans, W. (2011). ‘Referendum: Geloofsartikel of Hebbeding, Drama of Nuttige Correctie?’ [‘Referendums: Article of Faith or Must-Have, Drama or Useful Correction?’], Ars Aequi 60 (6): 468–478.Search in Google Scholar

Wagner, C. (1983). ‘Anscombe’s Paradox and the Rules of Three-Fourths’, Theory and Decision 15 (3): 303–308.Search in Google Scholar

Dutch parliamentary papers and court decisions

Court of The Hague, 12th April 2017, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:3667, rechtspraak.nl, Stichting Forum voor Democratie v. De Staat der Nederlanden.Search in Google Scholar

Parliamentary Papers(Kamerstukken) II, the Netherlands, 1999/2000, 27034, 4.Search in Google Scholar

Parliamentary Papers(Kamerstukken) II, the Netherlands, 2005/06, 30372, 3.Search in Google Scholar

Supreme Court of the Netherlands, 19th November 1999, ECLI:NL:HR:1999:AA1056, NJ 2000/160 (Tegelen judgement).Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2019-11-07
Published in Print: 2019-11-18

© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston