Reply to Miller on agendas and sincerity
- Author(s): Schwartz, Thomas
- et al.
Published Web Locationhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-010-9703-9
Contrary to Miller, Farquharson’s agenda trees do omit real parliamentary information. And the assumptions he uses to justify Farquharson’s definition of sincere (or naive) voting justify too little (e.g., he drops maximax) and rule out too much (e.g., non-pre-set agendas and principled sincere voting).
Many UC-authored scholarly publications are freely available on this site because of the UC Academic Senate's Open Access Policy. Let us know how this access is important for you.