FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2767240161> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2767240161 abstract "This paper gives an economic analysis of the design of electoral systems. It particular it evaluates how political science has been dealing with this issue. The main choice is between either district representation (DR) or equal or proportional representation (EPR). It appears that DR obliterates votes so that the principle of One Woman, One Vote and also article 21 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are violated. Holland in 1917 switched from DR to EPR but countries like the USA, UK and France still adopt DR. Brexit can be diagnosed as a result of the UK system of DR and the build-up of frustration on democracy within the UK itself. It appears that the advisory role of political scientists cannot be overlooked. Political science started in the humanities and only gradually adopted the methods of science, e.g. with the foundation of APSA in 1903. However, political science on the particular topic of electoral systems apparently still remains with its tradition in the humanities, in which assumptions are more important than analysis and hard data. Political science on electoral systems is no experimental science, since one cannot experiment with nations and their elections. The situation is similar as for macro-economics or astronomy that also are observational sciences, yet the latter fields have managed better in adopting the methods of science. A new development uses laboratory experiments, but these obviously cannot replace actual elections for the US House of Representatives or the UK House of Commons. This paper focuses on a deconstruction of a study by Carey & Hix (2011) (C&H) on an “electoral sweet spot”, that favours DR and that would mean the end of EPR. Other evidence on other studies is given in appendices. The deconstruction of the C&H study is sufficient evidence though, since it constitutes the culmination of a particular branch in political science. This branch appears to contain fundamental confusion and bias. Political science might regard this deconstruction as mere opinion but for science an empirical observation constitutes a fact. C&H also take ‘the most frequent of good outcomes’ as ‘thus the best overall’, which confuses frequency with optimality. This is more particular to their study though other political scientists are already copying this confusion instead of criticising it. Proper science should step in and assist political science to become a real science." @default.
• W2767240161 created "2017-11-17" @default.
• W2767240161 creator A5056826474 @default.
• W2767240161 date "2017-11-08" @default.
• W2767240161 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
• W2767240161 title "One woman, one vote. Though not in the USA, UK and France" @default.
• W2767240161 hasPublicationYear "2017" @default.
• W2767240161 type Work @default.
• W2767240161 sameAs 2767240161 @default.
• W2767240161 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2767240161 crossrefType "posted-content" @default.
• W2767240161 hasAuthorship W2767240161A5056826474 @default.
• W2767240161 hasConcept C138921699 @default.
• W2767240161 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2767240161 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2767240161 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W2767240161 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2767240161 hasConcept C2776359362 @default.
• W2767240161 hasConcept C2778959273 @default.
• W2767240161 hasConcept C2780849931 @default.
• W2767240161 hasConcept C2781093426 @default.
• W2767240161 hasConcept C2781440851 @default.
• W2767240161 hasConcept C3116431 @default.
• W2767240161 hasConcept C555826173 @default.
• W2767240161 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W2767240161 hasConceptScore W2767240161C138921699 @default.
• W2767240161 hasConceptScore W2767240161C144024400 @default.
• W2767240161 hasConceptScore W2767240161C17744445 @default.
• W2767240161 hasConceptScore W2767240161C190253527 @default.
• W2767240161 hasConceptScore W2767240161C199539241 @default.
• W2767240161 hasConceptScore W2767240161C2776359362 @default.
• W2767240161 hasConceptScore W2767240161C2778959273 @default.
• W2767240161 hasConceptScore W2767240161C2780849931 @default.
• W2767240161 hasConceptScore W2767240161C2781093426 @default.
• W2767240161 hasConceptScore W2767240161C2781440851 @default.
• W2767240161 hasConceptScore W2767240161C3116431 @default.
• W2767240161 hasConceptScore W2767240161C555826173 @default.
• W2767240161 hasConceptScore W2767240161C94625758 @default.
• W2767240161 hasLocation W27672401611 @default.
• W2767240161 hasOpenAccess W2767240161 @default.
• W2767240161 hasPrimaryLocation W27672401611 @default.
• W2767240161 hasRelatedWork W1494267968 @default.
• W2767240161 hasRelatedWork W1545863345 @default.
• W2767240161 hasRelatedWork W1575141650 @default.
• W2767240161 hasRelatedWork W2007803198 @default.
• W2767240161 hasRelatedWork W2017444901 @default.
• W2767240161 hasRelatedWork W2070256068 @default.
• W2767240161 hasRelatedWork W2202436405 @default.
• W2767240161 hasRelatedWork W2335928273 @default.
• W2767240161 hasRelatedWork W2462494255 @default.
• W2767240161 hasRelatedWork W2484827660 @default.
• W2767240161 hasRelatedWork W2617212301 @default.
• W2767240161 hasRelatedWork W2785144488 @default.
• W2767240161 hasRelatedWork W2993079879 @default.
• W2767240161 hasRelatedWork W3122143720 @default.
• W2767240161 hasRelatedWork W430559384 @default.
• W2767240161 hasRelatedWork W776387861 @default.
• W2767240161 hasRelatedWork W797602698 @default.
• W2767240161 hasRelatedWork W807434716 @default.
• W2767240161 hasRelatedWork W809107335 @default.
• W2767240161 hasRelatedWork W2610709519 @default.
• W2767240161 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2767240161 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2767240161 magId "2767240161" @default.
• W2767240161 workType "article" @default.