DOCSLIB.ORG

Gil Delannoi (Ed.)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Gil Delannoi (Ed.) DIRECT DEMOCRACY AND SORTITION Gil Delannoi (ed.) Les Cahiers du CEVIPOF Avril 2012, n°56 DIRECT DEMOCRACY AND SORTITION CONFERENCE, PARIS, CEVIPOF, OCTOBER 6TH-7TH 2011 Gil DELANNOI SCIENCES PO, CEVIPOF LAURENCE MOREL UNIVERSITÉ DE LILLE-II BARBARA GOODWIN UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA PETER STONE TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN ANTOINE CHOLLET UNIVERSITÉ DE LAUSANNE OLIVER DOWLEN CO-ORGANISATEUR DU PROGRAMME DE RECHERCHE SUR LE TIRAGE AU SORT These papers were presented during the first session of the Research Programme on sortition funded by Sciences Po and held at the CEVIPOF in October 2011. This session was organised by Gil Delannoi, one of the organisers of the Programme. The other two organisers are Oliver Dowlen and Peter Stone. The second session was held in November 2011 and the third in May 2012. A fourth session will be held in October 2012. More are planned. th th CONFERENCE, Paris, CEVIPOF, October 6 -7 2011 CONTENTS ON SEVERAL KINDS OF DEMOCRACY GIL DELANNOI ..................................................................................................... 5 SORTITION AND CONTEMPORARY DEMOCRACY LAURENCE MOREL ................................................................ 19 1. WHAT IS SORTITION? ................................................................................................................. 19 A. A mechanism for selecting alternatives .................................................................................................... 19 1. Randomly .......................................................................................................................................... 19 2. Two kinds of alternatives ................................................................................................................... 19 a. People (for the attribution of goods: typically positions or resources) ............................................................. 19 b. Policies ......................................................................................................................................................... 20 B. Sortition in the Political Sphere ................................................................................................................. 20 1. Athens and Florence ......................................................................................................................... 20 a. Athens........................................................................................................................................................... 20 b. Florence ........................................................................................................................................................ 21 2. The Rarity of Sortition ....................................................................................................................... 21 2. IS SORTITION A FORM OF DEMOCRACY? ............................................................................... 23 A. Sortition is not Democratic in Essence ..................................................................................................... 23 1. It “only” Represents Equal Opportunity ............................................................................................. 23 a. What is Democracy? ..................................................................................................................................... 23 b. What is Sortition? .......................................................................................................................................... 24 2. However, sortition might be “better” than democracy if only minority government is possible .......... 25 B. Sortition can be democratic (with some adjuncts) .................................................................................... 25 1. Sortition with frequent rotation: diachronic equality ........................................................................... 26 2. Sortition as a Sampling Technique: Synchronic Equality .................................................................. 27 3. “Quasi-direct democracy” .................................................................................................................. 27 C. Direct, Representative, Sortation Democracy ........................................................................................... 28 1. Selection for Positions ....................................................................................................................... 28 2. Recruitment of Assemblies ............................................................................................................... 28 3. A Mixed Regime? .............................................................................................................................. 29 3. SORTITION AND “GOOD GOVERNMENT” ................................................................................. 30 A. The Problem ............................................................................................................................................. 30 B. Competence ............................................................................................................................................. 31 1. Relevance of the Problem ................................................................................................................. 31 2. The Intrinsic Remedy ........................................................................................................................ 32 3. The Extrinsic Remedy ....................................................................................................................... 33 C. Correctness .............................................................................................................................................. 34 1. Definition and Relevance of the Problem .......................................................................................... 34 2. “Better” Rulers versus Responsible Rulers? ..................................................................................... 34 Conclusion: Prospects for Sortition ................................................................................................... 36 DIRECT DEMOCRACY AND LOTTERY DEMOCRACY – TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS? BARBARA GOODWIN……………………………………………………………………………………37 1. FIRST, AN OVERVIEW OF THE ISSUES .................................................................................... 37 2. DEFINITIONS OF DEMOCRACY ................................................................................................. 38 3. REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY ............................................................................................. 39 4. DIRECT DEMOCRACY................................................................................................................. 42 5. LOTTERY DEMOCRACY ............................................................................................................. 46 LES CAHIERS DU CEVIPOF – AVRIL 2012/56 6. EVALUATING DIRECT VERSUS LOTTERY DEMOCRACY ....................................................... 47 Conclusions: On Lottery Democracy ................................................................................................. 48 MANY VOICES, DIFFERENT VOICES PETER STONE ...................................................................................................... 51 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 52 1. Intrinsic or Instrumental? ............................................................................................................... 55 2. Many People ................................................................................................................................. 57 3. Many Different People ................................................................................................................... 59 4. Proportionately Many Different People ......................................................................................... 65 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 67 Bibliography ....................................................................................................................................... 70 DIRECT DEMOCRACY AND PARTY SYSTEM: A BLIND SPOT OF SWISS INSTITUTION/DÉMOCRATIE DIRECTE ET SYSTÈME PARTISAN : UN POINT AVEUGLE DES INSTITUTIONS SUISSES ANTOINE CHOLLET . 73 1. DIRECT DEMOCRACY................................................................................................................. 73 2. ELECTIONS .................................................................................................................................. 74 3. CONSULTATIVE DEMOCRACY .................................................................................................. 76 4. PARTY SYSTEM ........................................................................................................................... 77 5. DEMOCRATIZATION .................................................................................................................... 78 WHO? AND HOW? SORTITION, DEMOCRACY AND GOOD GOVERNEMENT OLIVER DOWEN .................... 81 Déjà parus ............................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Il Sorteggio Come Metodo Di Decisione
    IL SORTEGGIO COME METODO DI DECISIONE. PRINCIPI E FATTISPECIE* di Marco Mandato** SOMMARIO: 1. Premessa – 2. Il sorteggio come regola ordinaria di decisione per tutelare l’eguaglianza in 'entrata' – 3. Il sorteggio come regola decisoria residuale o eccezionale per tutelare l’eguaglianza 'sopravvenuta' – 4. Il sorteggio come regola di formazione degli organi collegiali di valutazione e controllo – 4.1. Il sorteggio come regola di formazione degli organi collegiali con funzioni giurisdizionali – 5. Conclusioni 1. Premessa l sorteggio rappresenta un metodo per assumere le decisioni nell’ambito della I giuridicità1. Il caso è considerato il metodo più democratico2 perché, in fondo, la * Contributo sottoposto a double blind peer review. ** Dottore di ricerca in Diritto pubblico, comparato e internazionale – Teoria dello Stato e Istituzioni politiche comparate, Sapienza, Università di Roma. 1 Per un inquadramento preliminare e generale sul tema, sebbene relativamente al solo Diritto pubblico, cfr. ZEI, A., L’arbitrato del caso: applicazioni del metodo del sorteggio nel Diritto pubblico, in Nomos-Le attualità nel diritto, n. 1/2017. 2 Il carattere democratico del sorteggio è stato alla base del funzionamento della democrazia ateniese nel V e nel IV secolo a. C., nella Firenze del a Venezia dal 1268 e a Firenze dal 1328. Ad Atene, l’estrazione a sorte costituiva il metodo tipico per formare la Bulé e le cariche interne alla stessa. il Presidente, competente a gestire e organizzare i lavori. Il Presidente era uno dei pritani, ossia un consigliere della tribù dirigente che veniva estratto a sorte. Terminato il turno‘, al tramonto, si procedeva nuovamente all‘estrazione di un nuovo Presidente tra i pritani delle tribù in modo che ciascuna di esse avrebbe diretto gli affari‘ secondo il turno stabilito dal caso.
    [Show full text]
  • Facets of Democracy: an Overview
    Molung Educational Frontier 15 Facets of Democracy: An Overview Aswasthama Bhakta Kharel, PhD* Abstract Democracy allows the expression of political preferences of citizens in a state. It advocates the rule of law, constraints on executive’s power, and guarantees the provision of civil liberties. It also manages to ensure human rights and fundamental freedoms of people. In democracy, people are supposed to exercise their freely expressed will. Ordinary people hold the political power of the state and rule directly or through elected representatives inside a democratic form of government. Democracy is a participatory and liberal way of governing a country. Different countries in the world have been practicing various models of democracy. There remains the participation of people in government and policy-making of the state under democracy. But when the majority can pull the strings of the society without there being legislation for protecting the rights of the minority, it may create a severe risk of oppression. Many countries of the world at the present time are facing democratic deficits. In several countries, the democratic practices are not adequately regulated and governed, as a result, the rise of violations of rules of law is observed. Even a few countries practicing democracy are not living peacefully. This situation has put a significant question about the need and sustainability of democracy. Democracy is a widely used system of governance beyond having several challenges. Here the concept, origin, models, dimensions, practices, challenges, solutions, and future of democracy are dealt to understand the structure of ideal democracy. Keywords: democracy, human rights, rule of law, sustainable development, election Methodology The methodology applied in maintaining this research paper includes documentary analysis qualitatively where different journals, public documents, organizational reports, articles, and books are referred, and their factual data are considered.
    [Show full text]
  • Are Condorcet and Minimax Voting Systems the Best?1
    1 Are Condorcet and Minimax Voting Systems the Best?1 Richard B. Darlington Cornell University Abstract For decades, the minimax voting system was well known to experts on voting systems, but was not widely considered to be one of the best systems. But in recent years, two important experts, Nicolaus Tideman and Andrew Myers, have both recognized minimax as one of the best systems. I agree with that. This paper presents my own reasons for preferring minimax. The paper explicitly discusses about 20 systems. Comments invited. [email protected] Copyright Richard B. Darlington May be distributed free for non-commercial purposes Keywords Voting system Condorcet Minimax 1. Many thanks to Nicolaus Tideman, Andrew Myers, Sharon Weinberg, Eduardo Marchena, my wife Betsy Darlington, and my daughter Lois Darlington, all of whom contributed many valuable suggestions. 2 Table of Contents 1. Introduction and summary 3 2. The variety of voting systems 4 3. Some electoral criteria violated by minimax’s competitors 6 Monotonicity 7 Strategic voting 7 Completeness 7 Simplicity 8 Ease of voting 8 Resistance to vote-splitting and spoiling 8 Straddling 8 Condorcet consistency (CC) 8 4. Dismissing eight criteria violated by minimax 9 4.1 The absolute loser, Condorcet loser, and preference inversion criteria 9 4.2 Three anti-manipulation criteria 10 4.3 SCC/IIA 11 4.4 Multiple districts 12 5. Simulation studies on voting systems 13 5.1. Why our computer simulations use spatial models of voter behavior 13 5.2 Four computer simulations 15 5.2.1 Features and purposes of the studies 15 5.2.2 Further description of the studies 16 5.2.3 Results and discussion 18 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Choice Theory Christian List
    1 Social Choice Theory Christian List Social choice theory is the study of collective decision procedures. It is not a single theory, but a cluster of models and results concerning the aggregation of individual inputs (e.g., votes, preferences, judgments, welfare) into collective outputs (e.g., collective decisions, preferences, judgments, welfare). Central questions are: How can a group of individuals choose a winning outcome (e.g., policy, electoral candidate) from a given set of options? What are the properties of different voting systems? When is a voting system democratic? How can a collective (e.g., electorate, legislature, collegial court, expert panel, or committee) arrive at coherent collective preferences or judgments on some issues, on the basis of its members’ individual preferences or judgments? How can we rank different social alternatives in an order of social welfare? Social choice theorists study these questions not just by looking at examples, but by developing general models and proving theorems. Pioneered in the 18th century by Nicolas de Condorcet and Jean-Charles de Borda and in the 19th century by Charles Dodgson (also known as Lewis Carroll), social choice theory took off in the 20th century with the works of Kenneth Arrow, Amartya Sen, and Duncan Black. Its influence extends across economics, political science, philosophy, mathematics, and recently computer science and biology. Apart from contributing to our understanding of collective decision procedures, social choice theory has applications in the areas of institutional design, welfare economics, and social epistemology. 1. History of social choice theory 1.1 Condorcet The two scholars most often associated with the development of social choice theory are the Frenchman Nicolas de Condorcet (1743-1794) and the American Kenneth Arrow (born 1921).
    [Show full text]
  • Ethnic Conflicts & the Informational Dividend of Democracy
    ETHNIC CONFLICTS & THE INFORMATIONAL DIVIDEND OF DEMOCRACY∗ Jeremy Laurent-Lucchettiy Dominic Rohnerz Mathias Thoenig§ November 2019 Abstract Prevailing explanations view democracy as an institutional arrangement that solves a class conflict between a rich elite and the rest of population. We study the logic of democratic transition when ethnic tensions are more salient than the poor/rich divide. We build a simple theory where (i) ethnic groups negotiate over allocating the economic surplus and (ii) both military and political mobiliza- tions rest on the unobserved strength of ethnic identity. By eliciting information on mobilization, free and fair elections restore inter-ethnic bargaining efficiency and prevent conflict outbreak. We show that democratic transition can be rationally chosen by autocrats, even if it involves a risk of losing power, as elections reduce the informational rent of the opposition, allowing the legitimately elected ruler to grab more economic surplus. Our setup generates new predictions on the nature of political regime, government tenure, ethnic favoritism and social unrest for ethnically divided countries - all consistent with novel country-level and ethnic group-level panel evidence on democratization in the post-decolonization period. JEL classification: C72, D02, D72, D74, D82, P16. Keywords: Democracy, Elections, Conflict, Asymmetric Information, Ethnic Identity, Institutions, Government Tenure, Political Regime, Ethnic Favoritism. ∗We thank Brendan Berthold and Pascal Zumbühl for excellent research assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Absolute Voting Rules Adrian Vermeule
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics Economics 2005 Absolute Voting Rules Adrian Vermeule Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/law_and_economics Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Adrian Vermeule, "Absolute Voting Rules" (John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics Working Paper No. 257, 2005). This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Economics by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CHICAGO JOHN M. OLIN LAW & ECONOMICS WORKING PAPER NO. 257 (2D SERIES) Absolute Voting Rules Adrian Vermeule THE LAW SCHOOL THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO August 2005 This paper can be downloaded without charge at: The Chicago Working Paper Series Index: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/Lawecon/index.html and at the Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection: http://ssrn.com/abstract_id=791724 Absolute Voting Rules Adrian Vermeule* The theory of voting rules developed in law, political science, and economics typically compares simple majority rule with alternatives, such as various types of supermajority rules1 and submajority rules.2 There is another critical dimension to these questions, however. Consider the following puzzles: $ In the United States Congress, the votes of a majority of those present and voting are necessary to approve a law.3 In the legislatures of California and Minnesota,4 however, the votes of a majority of all elected members are required.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Distortion of Voting with Multiple Representative Candidates∗
    The Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-18) On the Distortion of Voting with Multiple Representative Candidates∗ Yu Cheng Shaddin Dughmi David Kempe Duke University University of Southern California University of Southern California Abstract voters and the chosen candidate in a suitable metric space (Anshelevich 2016; Anshelevich, Bhardwaj, and Postl 2015; We study positional voting rules when candidates and voters Anshelevich and Postl 2016; Goel, Krishnaswamy, and Mu- are embedded in a common metric space, and cardinal pref- erences are naturally given by distances in the metric space. nagala 2017). The underlying assumption is that the closer In a positional voting rule, each candidate receives a score a candidate is to a voter, the more similar their positions on from each ballot based on the ballot’s rank order; the candi- key questions are. Because proximity implies that the voter date with the highest total score wins the election. The cost would benefit from the candidate’s election, voters will rank of a candidate is his sum of distances to all voters, and the candidates by increasing distance, a model known as single- distortion of an election is the ratio between the cost of the peaked preferences (Black 1948; Downs 1957; Black 1958; elected candidate and the cost of the optimum candidate. We Moulin 1980; Merrill and Grofman 1999; Barbera,` Gul, consider the case when candidates are representative of the and Stacchetti 1993; Richards, Richards, and McKay 1998; population, in the sense that they are drawn i.i.d. from the Barbera` 2001). population of the voters, and analyze the expected distortion Even in the absence of strategic voting, voting systems of positional voting rules.
    [Show full text]
  • Single-Winner Voting Method Comparison Chart
    Single-winner Voting Method Comparison Chart This chart compares the most widely discussed voting methods for electing a single winner (and thus does not deal with multi-seat or proportional representation methods). There are countless possible evaluation criteria. The Criteria at the top of the list are those we believe are most important to U.S. voters. Plurality Two- Instant Approval4 Range5 Condorcet Borda (FPTP)1 Round Runoff methods6 Count7 Runoff2 (IRV)3 resistance to low9 medium high11 medium12 medium high14 low15 spoilers8 10 13 later-no-harm yes17 yes18 yes19 no20 no21 no22 no23 criterion16 resistance to low25 high26 high27 low28 low29 high30 low31 strategic voting24 majority-favorite yes33 yes34 yes35 no36 no37 yes38 no39 criterion32 mutual-majority no41 no42 yes43 no44 no45 yes/no 46 no47 criterion40 prospects for high49 high50 high51 medium52 low53 low54 low55 U.S. adoption48 Condorcet-loser no57 yes58 yes59 no60 no61 yes/no 62 yes63 criterion56 Condorcet- no65 no66 no67 no68 no69 yes70 no71 winner criterion64 independence of no73 no74 yes75 yes/no 76 yes/no 77 yes/no 78 no79 clones criterion72 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 monotonicity yes no no yes yes yes/no yes criterion80 prepared by FairVote: The Center for voting and Democracy (April 2009). References Austen-Smith, David, and Jeffrey Banks (1991). “Monotonicity in Electoral Systems”. American Political Science Review, Vol. 85, No. 2 (June): 531-537. Brewer, Albert P. (1993). “First- and Secon-Choice Votes in Alabama”. The Alabama Review, A Quarterly Review of Alabama History, Vol. ?? (April): ?? - ?? Burgin, Maggie (1931). The Direct Primary System in Alabama.
    [Show full text]
  • Random Selection in Politics
    Random selection in politics Lyn Carson and Brian Martin Published in 1999 by Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT Available for purchase from Praeger This is the text submitted to Praeger in February 1999. It differs from the published version in minor ways, including formatting, copy-editing changes, page numbering (100 pages instead of 161) and omission of the index. This version prepared August 2008 Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Random selection in decision making 10 3. Direct democracy 26 4. Citizen participation without random selection 36 5. Citizen participation with random selection: the early days 43 6. Citizen participation with random selection: yesterday, today, and tomorrow 52 7. Sortition futures 65 8. Strategies 76 Appendix: Examples of citizen participation 84 Bibliography 93 Acknowledgments Brownlea, John Burnheim, Ned Crosby, Many people we’ve talked to find the Jim Dator, Mary Lane, Marcus Schmidt, idea of random selection in politics and Stuart White. Their input was unnatural and unwelcome. This didn’t valuable even when we decided on an deter us! Fortunately, there were a few alternative approach. Helpful comments enthusiasts who got and kept us going. were also received from Ted Becker, Alan Davies, Fred Emery, and Merrelyn Stephen Healy, Lars Klüver, and Ken Emery provided the original inspiration Russell. Others who provided many years ago as well as ongoing information are acknowledged in the conversations. text. The process of obtaining comments Ted Becker encouraged us to write has been stimulating because not all this book. On drafts, we received readers go with us all the way on extensive comments from Arthur randomness.
    [Show full text]
  • Jury Selection in Federal Court
    Resource ID: 1-613-5747 Jury Selection in Federal Court JONATHAN S. TAM, DECHERT LLP, WITH PRACTICAL LAW LITIGATION Search the Resource ID numbers in blue on Westlaw for more. This Practice Note addresses selecting a jury Exercising juror challenges (see Exercising Juror Challenges). in a federal civil case, including the applicable Conducting post-trial interviews (see Conducting Post-Trial Interviews). rules on picking a jury, the process and method for jury selection, researching prospective OVERVIEW OF THE JURY SELECTION PROCESS jurors and building juror profiles, conducting Although how a jury is selected varies among courts and judges, the voir dire, exercising peremptory challenges, process in federal court generally occurs in the following order: The court may first mail a preliminary, administrative questionnaire challenges for cause, and Batson challenges, to a randomly selected pool of prospective jurors from registered and interviewing jurors post-trial. voter or licensed driver lists to determine if these individuals appear qualified for federal jury service based on their age and ability to understand English (see Juror Qualifications). The prospect of a jury trial often keeps counsel and their clients The court mails summonses to an initial pool of randomly selected awake at night. Juries can be unpredictable, and jurors may have prospective jurors. The court then randomly selects a narrower preconceived ideas or biases that can escape counsel during the pool of prospective jurors from the initial pool, and calls them for a selection process. Some cases may be won or lost during jury specific case. selection, before opening statements or a single piece of evidence The judge presiding over the case determines whether any jurors is introduced.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Criminal Rules
    LOCAL CRIMINAL RULES UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA Mark C. McCartt, Clerk of Court Effective Date: September 26, 2016 Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Intro 5 Counties 6 I. SCOPE OF RULES 7 LCrR1. Scope; Application. 7 1.1 Title and Citation. 7 1.2 Effective Date. 7 1.3 Application of Rules. 7 1.4 Electronic filings. 7 1.5 Judicial Waiver. 7 1.6 Forms and General Orders. 7 1.7 United States Magistrate Judges. 7 II. INITIAL APPEARANCE, ARRAIGNMENT, AND PRELIMINARY HEARINGS 7 LCrR5. Initial Appearance Before Magistrate Judge. 7 5.1 Time and Place of Initial Appearance. 7 5.2 Initial Interview of Defendant by U.S. Probation Officers. 8 5.3 Preparation of the Financial Affidavit. 8 5.4 Appearance on a Summons. 8 5.5 Unsealing Case. 8 LCrR6. Grand Jury. 8 6.1 Release of Grand Jury Material to U.S. Probation Officer. 8 LCrR7. Complaint, Indictment, and Information. 8 7.1 Delivery of a Complaint After Filing. 8 7.2 Related Case Notices. 9 7.3 Return of Indictments. 9 7.4 Delivery of an Information After Filing. 10 7.5 Random Assignment of District Judges. 10 LCrR10. Arraignment 10 10.1 Waiver of Appearance. 10 III. PREPARATION FOR TRIAL 10 LCrR11. Plea Agreements. 10 11.1 Providing Plea Agreements to the Court. 10 11.2 Notification of a Change of Plea. 10 11.3 Petition to Enter a Plea of Guilty. 10 11.4 Deferring Acceptance or Rejection of Plea Agreements. 10 LCrR12. Disclosure Statement.
    [Show full text]
  • A Canadian Model of Proportional Representation by Robert S. Ring A
    Proportional-first-past-the-post: A Canadian model of Proportional Representation by Robert S. Ring A thesis submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Political Science Memorial University St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador May 2014 ii Abstract For more than a decade a majority of Canadians have consistently supported the idea of proportional representation when asked, yet all attempts at electoral reform thus far have failed. Even though a majority of Canadians support proportional representation, a majority also report they are satisfied with the current electoral system (even indicating support for both in the same survey). The author seeks to reconcile these potentially conflicting desires by designing a uniquely Canadian electoral system that keeps the positive and familiar features of first-past-the- post while creating a proportional election result. The author touches on the theory of representative democracy and its relationship with proportional representation before delving into the mechanics of electoral systems. He surveys some of the major electoral system proposals and options for Canada before finally presenting his made-in-Canada solution that he believes stands a better chance at gaining approval from Canadians than past proposals. iii Acknowledgements First of foremost, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to my brilliant supervisor, Dr. Amanda Bittner, whose continuous guidance, support, and advice over the past few years has been invaluable. I am especially grateful to you for encouraging me to pursue my Master’s and write about my electoral system idea.
    [Show full text]