Actually, I'm in the process of writing up a short article for Public
Choice on this topic (as Bryan may recall).  

If expressive voting theory holds, and if expressive benefits
are increasing in the amount of money "voted" under the Tideman-Tullock
procedure, then the demand revelation process should induce worse outcomes
than the current system.  Specifically, people who have the strongest
preferences are accorded only one vote each in the current system.  Under
the demand revelation process, their influence will be magnified relative
to more instrumentally-oriented voters.  

Under the demand-revealing process, if my vote is decisive in changing the
outcome, I have to pay an amount equal to the amount of my dollar vote
that was necessary to swing the outcome: say that $1 million votes for
option A and my $20,000 vote was enough to generate $1,010,000 in votes
for B; then I owe a tax of $10,000.  

Say that I get expressive benefits of $1000 by telling everyone I've put
in a bid of $10,000 for policy option A under the demand revealing
process.  So long as my chances of being decisive are less than 1/10, it's
rational for me to bid $10,000 and gain the $1000 in expressive
benefits.  In equilibrium, the people with the strongest expressive
preferences bid the most and none of them are likely to be decisive, and
outcomes are worse than under a one-man one-vote system, so long as
expressive preferences diverge from instrumental preferences (which
Bryan's work strongly suggests).

Eric Crampton

On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Bryan Caplan wrote:

> If I remember correctly, demand revelation mechanisms are useless if the
> probability of decisiveness is low and voters get some direct utility
> from expressive voting or holding irrational beliefs.  
> 
> Thus, suppose I get a $10 direct expressive benefit from voting for tons
> of useless health care spending, and the probability of decisiveness is
> 1-in-a-million.  I don't see how any demand revelation mechanism is
> going to help.
> 
> -- 
>                         Prof. Bryan Caplan                
>        Department of Economics      George Mason University
>         http://www.bcaplan.com      [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
>   "He wrote a letter, but did not post it because he felt that no one 
>    would have understood what he wanted to say, and besides it was not 
>    necessary that anyone but himself should understand it."     
>                    Leo Tolstoy, *The Cossacks*
> 
> 


Reply via email to