David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Politics, Philosophy and Economics 10 (2):1470594-10372206 (2010)
This article compares the ‘enfranchisement lottery’, a novel method for allocating the right to vote, with universal suffrage. The comparison is conducted exclusively on the basis of the expected consequences of the two systems. Each scheme seems to have a relative advantage. On the one hand, the enfranchisement lottery would create a better informed electorate and thus improve the quality of electoral outcomes. On the other hand, universal suffrage is more likely to ensure that elections are seen to be fair, which is important for political stability. This article concludes that, on balance, universal suffrage is prima facie superior to the enfranchisement lottery. Yet the analysis shows that the instrumental case for the ‘one person, one vote’ principle is less conclusive than democratic theorists usually suppose
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Yann Allard-Tremblay (2012). The Epistemic Edge of Majority Voting Over Lottery Voting. Res Publica 18 (3):207-223.
Similar books and articles
James M. Stearns & Shaheen Borna (1995). The Ethics of Lottery Advertising: Issues and Evidence. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 14 (1):43 - 51.
Jason Brennan (2011). The Right to a Competent Electorate. Philosophical Quarterly 61 (245):700-724.
Barbara Goodwin (1992). Justice by Lottery. University of Chicago Press.
Gregory Wheeler (2007). A Review of the Lottery Paradox. [REVIEW] In William Harper & Gregory Wheeler (eds.), Probability and Inference: Essays in Honour of Henry E. Kyburg, Jr.
Mark T. Nelson (2010). Y and Z Are Not Off the Hook: The Survival Lottery Made Fairer. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 35 (4):396-401.
Ulrich Schmidt (2001). Lottery Dependent Utility: A Reexamination. Theory and Decision 50 (1):35-58.
Juan Comesaña (2009). What Lottery Problem for Reliabilism? Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 90 (1):1-20.
Nicholas John Munn (forthcoming). Capacity Testing the Youth: A Proposal for Broader Enfranchisement. Journal of Youth Studies.
Thomas Kroedel (2013). The Permissibility Solution to the Lottery Paradox – Reply to Littlejohn. Logos and Episteme 4 (1):103-111.
Harriet A. Stranahan (2005). Does Lottery Advertising Exploit Disadvantaged and Vulnerable Markets? Business Ethics Quarterly 15 (1):23-35.
Eugene Mills (2012). Lotteries, Quasi-Lotteries, and Scepticism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90 (2):335 - 352.
Mark McEvoy (2009). Safety, The Lottery Puzzle, and Misprinted Lottery Results. Journal of Philosophical Research 34:47-49.
Baron Reed (2008). Fallibilism and the Lottery Paradox. Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 53:217-225.
Added to index2010-10-27
Total downloads27 ( #100,874 of 1,700,417 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #362,609 of 1,700,417 )
How can I increase my downloads?