Explaining stability in democratic political systems: A dialogue between behavioral research and social choice theory.

Abstract

This dissertation argues for a dialogue between behavioral research and social choice theory. The likelihood of candidate spatial equilibria, voting cycles, and other phenomena of interest to social choice theorists depends on the assumptions they make about how individuals choose among competing alternatives; yet these analyses typically ignore the empirically-grounded models of political preferences developed by behaviorists. I examine various social choice dilemmas from the perspective of the behavioral model of the vote, and illustrate and test my conclusions against survey data drawn from France, Britain, and the United States. The results suggest that democratic representation processes can function successfully, even if large portions of the mass public are uninformed and uninvolved.