首页> 外文期刊>Public choice >Agenda trees and sincere voting: a response to Schwartz
【24h】

Agenda trees and sincere voting: a response to Schwartz

机译:议程树和真诚的投票:对施瓦茨的回应

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Schwartz (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.
机译:Schwartz(Public Choice 136:353-377,2008)在投票理论文献中发现了有关议程结构表示和诚意投票的定义的争议。这篇笔记回应了施瓦茨的言论,认为他使用的议程树不能充分代表某些共同的议会议程,因此,他对真诚投票的定义不能总是得到应用。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号