G2TT
来源类型Working Paper
规范类型报告
DOI10.3386/w7342
来源IDWorking Paper 7342
Congressional Vote Options
David C. King; Richard J. Zeckhauser
发表日期1999-09-01
出版年1999
语种英语
摘要Among political practitioners, there is conventional wisdom about the outcomes of critical and salient legislative votes. 'This vote,' we hear, ' will either win by a little or lose by a lot.' Real-world examples suggest coalition leaders purchase 'hip-pocket' votes and "if you need me" pledges, which are converted to favorable votes when they will yield a victory. When the outcome is uncertain, such a process -- securing commitments in advance and calling them in if necessary -- is advantageous relative to traditional vote buying. Excess votes are not bought, nor are votes purchased for a losing effort. In effect, the leader secures options on votes. Given uncertainty, buying vote options yields two outcomes in conceivably winnable situations, one a narrow victory, the other a substantial loss. Such a distribution of outcomes is not explicable in a traditional vote-buying framework. We look for evidence of this pattern -- the tracings of 'if you need me pledges' -- by examining all Congressional Quarterly key votes from 1975 through 1998. On these critical and salient votes, narrow victories are much more frequent than narrow losses. Furthermore, when leaders lose key votes, as predicted, they lose by bigger margins than when they win. Finally, we discuss leadership strategies for keeping 'narrow wins' from unraveling into 'big losses.'
主题Microeconomics ; Game Theory ; Welfare and Collective Choice
URLhttps://www.nber.org/papers/w7342
来源智库National Bureau of Economic Research (United States)
引用统计
资源类型智库出版物
条目标识符http://119.78.100.153/handle/2XGU8XDN/564880
推荐引用方式
GB/T 7714
David C. King,Richard J. Zeckhauser. Congressional Vote Options. 1999.
条目包含的文件
文件名称/大小 资源类型 版本类型 开放类型 使用许可
w7342.pdf(234KB)智库出版物 限制开放CC BY-NC-SA浏览
个性服务
推荐该条目
保存到收藏夹
导出为Endnote文件
谷歌学术
谷歌学术中相似的文章
[David C. King]的文章
[Richard J. Zeckhauser]的文章
百度学术
百度学术中相似的文章
[David C. King]的文章
[Richard J. Zeckhauser]的文章
必应学术
必应学术中相似的文章
[David C. King]的文章
[Richard J. Zeckhauser]的文章
相关权益政策
暂无数据
收藏/分享
文件名: w7342.pdf
格式: Adobe PDF
此文件暂不支持浏览

除非特别说明,本系统中所有内容都受版权保护,并保留所有权利。