5. Voting Decisions

2021 ◽  
pp. 72-86
Author(s):  
Catherine E. De Vries ◽  
Sara B. Hobolt ◽  
Sven-Oliver Proksch ◽  
Jonathan B. Slapin
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Social Groups ◽  
Institutional Context ◽  
Collective Decision ◽  
Performance Evaluations ◽  
Collective Decision Making ◽  
Ideological Position ◽  
Ideological Dimension ◽  
Voting Decisions

This chapter analyses how citizens in Europe vote across elections. Elections are an integral part of democracy as they allow citizens to shape collective decision-making. The chapter addresses the issue of trying to explain why people vote in the first place. It also looks at the inequality of turnout between citizens: why do some people just not bother to vote at all? The chapter also looks at different explanations of vote choice. This is achieved by introducing the proximity model of voting which assumes that voters and parties can be aligned on one ideological dimension. It presupposes that voters will vote for the party that most closely resembles their own ideological position. Complications can be added to this model, however, that consider the role of retrospective performance evaluations and affective attachments to social groups and political parties. The institutional context also needs to be considered, though, as this can influence voters’s decision-making.

scholarly journals DAMPAK TEKNOLOGI AGRICULTURE GROWTH PROMOTING INOCULANT (AGPI) PADA USAHATANI PADI SAWAH DI KABUPATEN SLEMAN

Agro Ekonomi ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ken Suratiyah
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Labor Productivity ◽  
Collective Decision ◽  
Collective Decision Making ◽  
Rice Farming ◽  
Total Cost ◽  
Growth Promoting ◽  
Farmer Groups ◽  
Production Prices

This research was carried out in the Margo Agung villagem Seyegan subdistrict, Sleman regency, which aims (1) to identify how farmers use AGPI technology in rice farming, (2) to know the production, sot, incomes of farmers, (3) to analyze feasibility of rice farming and social prospect that includes the performance of farmer groups in implementing AGPI technology. The basic method in this study is descriptive analytical. The population are farmers who have applied AGPI technology on rice farming in the Sleman Regency, while the respondents were 30 farmers who are members of the farmers grup of Agung Bergas and Sumber Rejeki, in Margo Agung village, Seyegan Subdistrict. The result shows that (1) implementation of AGPI technology, the role of farmer groups as medium of learning, collective decision making and production unit tend to be higher, (2) AGPI technology increase the total cost and labour but yields enhancement in rice production and income, (3) AGPI technology increase implementation is feasible, showed by the R/C>1, income > rental cost, π/C > bank interest, labor productivity > UMK, production, revenue, and the production prices > BEP.

scholarly journals A Trustworthy Human–Machine framework for collective decision making in Food–Energy–Water management: The role of trust sensitivity

2021 ◽  
Vol 213 ◽  
pp. 106683
Author(s):  
Suleyman Uslu ◽  
Davinder Kaur ◽  
Samuel J. Rivera ◽  
Arjan Durresi ◽  
Meghna Babbar-Sebens ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Water Management ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Collective Decision ◽  
Collective Decision Making ◽  
Food Energy

Understanding the Meaning of Representation in a Deliberative Democratic Governance System

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-184
Author(s):  
Lisa A. Kihl ◽  
Vicki Schull
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Voting Rights ◽  
Democratic Governance ◽  
Collective Decision ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Collective Decision Making ◽  
Governance System ◽  
Deliberative Process ◽  
Intercollegiate Sport

The meaning and nature of athlete representation in sport governance is broad and goes beyond formalistic delegate models and voting rights accounts. This article explores the meaning and nature of representation in the context of intercollegiate sport governance. Interviews were conducted with intercollegiate athlete representatives and athlete representative administrative advisors to gain an understanding of how and why athlete representatives carried out their roles. Findings revealed that the meaning and motivations of athlete representation were based on the institutionalized deliberative democratic governance system. Representation meant standing and acting for the power of the athlete voice and having the capacity to generate the athlete voice into legislation and decision making. The performative role of representatives involved self-accountability, where they accepted responsibility to engage in a deliberative process of collective decision making. Implications for practice and future research on athlete representation in a deliberative democratic sport governance system are presented.

Reconsidering the Role of Political Argument in Democratic Politics

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack Knight ◽  
James Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Social Choice ◽  
Causal Effect ◽  
Collective Decision ◽  
Collective Decision Making ◽  
Strategic Manipulation ◽  
The Social ◽  
Analytical Argument

This chapter examines three ways that political argument can affect democratic decision making and, thus, significantly mitigate the force of the social choice challenge. By engaging in political argument, relevant agents can settle the dimensions that, in any instance, structure their disagreements. This causal effect not only dampens the prospects that collective decision making will generate cyclical outcomes, it thereby reduces the opportunities for strategic manipulation that such instability presents. Once the analytical argument has established the possibility that voting, augmented by argument, could produce normatively legitimate decisions, the chapter considers two ways in which democratic argument can enhance the quality of such decisions: diversity and reflexivity.

scholarly journals What failure in collective decision-making tells us about metacognition

2012 ◽  
Vol 367 (1594) ◽  
pp. 1350-1365 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bahador Bahrami ◽  
Karsten Olsen ◽  
Dan Bang ◽  
Andreas Roepstorff ◽  
Geraint Rees ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Information Integration ◽  
Majority Vote ◽  
Sensory Modality ◽  
Collective Decision ◽  
Collective Decision Making ◽  
Human Communication ◽  
Perceptual Decision Making ◽  
Integration Problem

Condorcet (1785) proposed that a majority vote drawn from individual, independent and fallible (but not totally uninformed) opinions provides near-perfect accuracy if the number of voters is adequately large. Research in social psychology has since then repeatedly demonstrated that collectives can and do fail more often than expected by Condorcet. Since human collective decisions often follow from exchange of opinions, these failures provide an exquisite opportunity to understand human communication of metacognitive confidence . This question can be addressed by recasting collective decision-making as an information-integration problem similar to multisensory (cross-modal) perception. Previous research in systems neuroscience shows that one brain can integrate information from multiple senses nearly optimally. Inverting the question, we ask: under what conditions can two brains integrate information about one sensory modality optimally? We review recent work that has taken this approach and report discoveries about the quantitative limits of collective perceptual decision-making, and the role of the mode of communication and feedback in collective decision-making. We propose that shared metacognitive confidence conveys the strength of an individual's opinion and its reliability inseparably. We further suggest that a functional role of shared metacognition is to provide substitute signals in situations where outcome is necessary for learning but unavailable or impossible to establish.

Legitimacy Problems in Deliberative Democracy

2003 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 180-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Parkinson
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Policy ◽  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
Collective Decision ◽  
Collective Decision Making ◽  
Complex Societies ◽  
Policy Debate ◽  
Driving Current ◽  
Electoral Representation

The classic accounts of deliberative democracy are also accounts of legitimacy: ‘that outcomes are legitimate to the extent they receive reflective assent through participation in authentic deliberation by all those subject to the decision in question’ ( Dryzek, 2001, p. 651 ). And yet, in complex societies deliberative participation by all those affected by collective decision-making is extremely implausible. There are also legitimacy problems with the demanding procedural requirements which deliberation imposes on participants. Given these problems, deliberative democracy seems unable to deliver legitimate outcomes as it defines them. Focusing on the problem of scale, this paper offers a tentative solution using representation, a concept which is itself problematic. Along the way, the paper highlights issues with the legitimate role of experts, the different legitimate uses of statistical and electoral representation, and differences between the research and democratic imperatives driving current attempts to put deliberative principles into practice, illustrated with a case from a Leicester health policy debate. While much work remains to be done on exactly how the principles arrived at might be transformed into working institutions, they do offer a means of criticising existing deliberative practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document