7078 research outputs found
Sort by
Reform for Realists: The False Promise of Condorcet Voting
No full textAs Americans grow disenchanted with democracy, many scholars suggest that election reforms may offer a path forward. The fastest growing of these reforms is ranked choice voting (RCV). In RCV elections, voters rank candidates in order of preference: first, second, third, and so on. The candidates with the least support are eliminated, and ballots that ranked those candidates count for their next choice instead. This method has over a century of use in public elections and provides proven benefits well-suited to many of the problems facing our country.
Yet some social choice theorists now argue that reformers have backed the wrong horse. They propose a different family of methods: Condorcet-compliant methods (CCMs). These scholars note that on rare occasions RCV can elect a winner other than the “Condorcet candidate” (i.e., the candidate who would have won against every other contender in pairwise contests), and they contend CCMs would fix this “flaw.”
In this Article, we step back from the theoretical conversations about formal, mathematical election-system criteria that have dominated the discourse and offer a more functional framework for analyzing proposed reforms. This “reform for realists” approach seeks to situate the existing literature in a richer scholarly context; to surface and center key normative questions; and to ground future study in a thicker (albeit messier) account of mediated, pluralistic politics and competing reform options.
Through this wider lens, we evaluate the latest CCM literature and argue that much of it misses the forest for the trees, ignoring fundamental principles of democratic design and first-order questions at the foundation of election law. CCM advocacy to date builds on unrealistic assumptions about voter behavior; elides critical, complex, and contested normative questions; overlooks essential relationships between candidates, parties, campaigns, elections, and governance; and ultimately cannot deliver on its core promise: the guaranteed election of a genuine Condorcet candidate. Under real-world conditions, CCMs may even risk electing the candidate opposed by most voters.
In the end, a functional framework suggests there are limits to the value of comparing the real-world performance of known reforms to the hypothetical performance of untested reforms based on how rational voters or candidates “should” behave. To be clear, no reform proposal should be rejected out of hand. But scholars and reformers alike may benefit from the study of real-world private uses and then initial municipal uses before wider applications are considered. For now, CCMs do not appear to offer distinct benefits that can be predicted with the kind of confidence that would justify immediate use in government elections to public office, especially at the state or federal level
Litigation Landmines: Exclusionary Zoning and Sober Living Homes
Full text linkThis article delves into the intricate landscape of sober living home ordinances within residential zoning districts, shedding light on exclusionary restrictions and requirements that have triggered extensive and costly discrimination litigation. Providing a concise history of the origins of modern-day sober living homes, the article examines legislative initiatives and ongoing litigation concerning zoning ordinances aimed at regulating these homes in residential neighborhoods. It explores the nuanced use or prohibition of specific terms and conditions within such ordinances and compares historical interpretations of regulatory provisions for recovery residences. The article presents examples of contentious terms and requirements that have fueled litigation, along with recent court interpretations. In addition, it offers recommendations for clearer and simplified provisions while discussing the potential risks associated with more detailed regulation of the internal operations of recovery residences
On the 175th Anniversary of the Wisconsin Constitution: An Examination of the Early Court “Repairs” of a Rushed Document
Full text linkThe Wisconsin Constitution was a document prepared in a hurry. The fall 1848 national election was expected to be a referendum on the spread of slavery and the only way for residents of the Wisconsin Territory to vote in the national election was for Wisconsin to become a state. In order to become a state, however, Wisconsin first needed a constitution. For forty days in late December 1847 and January 1848, a constitutional convention met in Madison. Using the 1840s equivalent, delegates “cut and pasted” whole sections from the constitutions of New York and Michigan, as well as from an 1846 Wisconsin version rejected by the territory’s voters
