Agenda Setting - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 29
About This Presentation
Title:

Agenda Setting

Description:

Jane gets exactly what she wanted. 1st. 2nd. 3rd. Green Pepper. 3rd. 1st. 2nd ... Actors may want privatization in both sector or neither or may want more ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:31
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 30
Provided by: KAM152
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Agenda Setting


1
Agenda Setting
  • Who gets to decide how we decide?
  • Democratic choice is not a free-for-all
  • Agenda order method of voting
  • Elections electoral system, party platforms
  • Debates moderator, time limits
  • Parliament order paper, closed rule
  • Time for deliberation and / or negotiation
  • Do agendas matter?

2
Agenda Setting
  • A Stylized Example
  • 3 Friends want to order pizza
  • Only enough money for 1 topping
  • Jane proposes a vote to decide what to order

3
Agenda Setting
  • A Stylized Example
  • Jane sets up first vote Salami or Extra Cheese?
  • John Jane vote Salami, Tim votes Extra
    Cheese
  • Tim loses 2-1

4
Agenda Setting
  • A Stylized Example
  • Next vote Salami or Green Pepper
  • Tim Jane vote Green Pepper, John votes
    Salami
  • Jane gets exactly what she wanted

5
Agenda Setting
  • A Stylized Example
  • Other agendas give different results
  • What if Tim had set the agenda?
  • Can Jane outwit Tims agenda setting?

6
Agenda Setting
  • A Stylized Example
  • Jane foresees outcome of Tims agenda
  • Jane votes insincerely at stage 1
  • Thus 2nd vote is on Salami vs Extra Cheese
  • Strategic voting voting against your first
    preference to avoid your worst payoff

7
Agenda Setting
  • Legislative Agenda Setting
  • Legislatures employ committees
  • Congressional committees
  • Parliamentary Cabinets
  • Gate-keeping power
  • Open rule vs. closed rule

8
Agenda Setting
  • Impact of a Closed Amendment Rule
  • Three disciplined parties, equal strength
  • Majority rules
  • Existing status quo (SQ)
  • No agenda power every one proposes alternative
    policy, x
  • Euclidean Preferences, i.e., closer is better

SQ
L
C
R
9
Agenda Setting
  • Impact of a Closed Amendment Rule
  • All in favour of x1gt SQ
  • As soon as x1 L gt SQ L, L-Party objects

x1
SQ
L
C
R
10
Agenda Setting
  • Impact of a Closed Amendment Rule
  • All in favour of x1gt SQ
  • As soon as x1 L gt SQ L, L-Party objects
  • But L outvoted by C R
  • Policy moves to x2 on Rs amendment

x1
x2
SQ
L
C
R
11
Agenda Setting
  • Impact of a Closed Amendment Rule
  • But C-Party can do even better
  • C-Party proposes x3
  • L-Party supports C-partys motion x3 wins

x1
x2
x3
L
C
R
12
Agenda Setting
  • Impact of a Closed Amendment Rule
  • All agendas produce this result
  • (i.e., given any SQ, all voting sequences lead
    to Cs ideal point)
  • Lesson The median voter wins
  • But must this always be the case?

x2
x1
x3
L
C
R
13
Agenda Setting
  • Impact of a Closed Amendment Rule
  • As initially, but R-Party has agenda power
    (e.g., it holds the premiership)
  • No other party can propose or amend
  • R-Party can make take-it or leave-it offer

SQ
L
C
R
14
Agenda Setting
  • Impact of a Closed Amendment Rule
  • R-Party offers x1gt SQ
  • C-Party supports because x1-C lt SQ-C, i.e.,
    C is better off under x1 than SQ
  • Closed rule gives non-median voter power

SQ
x1
L
C
R
15
Agenda Setting
  • Conclusion
  • Agendas can matter
  • Examples
  • Cabinet introduces money bills
  • Report stage after 2nd Reading
  • Clarity Act who gets to set referendum?

16
Agenda Setting
  • Multiple Dimensions
  • Typically more than one issue or policy to
    consider
  • Education versus health care
  • Wholly private (i.e., user pays 100) or
    completely public (i.e., free)
  • Mixtures are possible, e.g., privatized drug
    plans but publicly paid hospital visits public
    primary schools coexisting with private charter
    schools
  • Actors may want privatization in both sector or
    neither or may want more privatization in one
    sector (e.g., to improve parental choice in
    education) and much less in other (e.g., keeping
    health care 100 public)

17
Majority Rule in Multiple Dimensions
Completely privatized
Indifference Curve
x
Education
Utility increasing in proximity, i.e., Euclidean
preferences
Completely public
Completely privatized
Completely public
Health Care
18
Majority Rule in Multiple Dimensions
Completely privatized
Education
SQ
Completely public
Completely privatized
Completely public
Health Care
19
Majority Rule in Multiple Dimensions
Winset of SQ all points that defeat SQ in
pairwise competition
Completely privatized
Education
SQ
A core has an empty winset
Completely public
Completely privatized
Completely public
Health Care
20
Majority Rule in Multiple Dimensions
Completely privatized
Education
SQ
Contract curve
Completely public
Completely privatized
Completely public
Health Care
21
Majority Rule in Multiple Dimensions
Completely privatized
Education
x1
Completely public
Completely privatized
Completely public
Health Care
22
Majority Rule in Multiple Dimensions
Completely privatized
x2
Education
Completely public
Completely privatized
Completely public
Health Care
23
Majority Rule in Multiple Dimensions
Completely privatized
x2
Education
Completely public
Completely privatized
Completely public
Health Care
24
Majority Rule in Multiple Dimensions
Completely privatized
Education
x3
Completely public
Completely privatized
Completely public
Health Care
25
Majority Rule in Multiple Dimensions
Completely privatized
Education
x3
Completely public
Completely privatized
Completely public
Health Care
26
Majority Rule in Multiple Dimensions
  • Assembly has cycled back to x1
  • No core in ?m !

Education
x1
Health Care
27
McKelveys Chaos Theorem
  • Chronic condition, indeed chaotic
  • Voting can start with any point, and lead to
    any point

Completely privatized
Education
x1
Completely public
Completely privatized
Completely public
Health Care
28
McKelveys Chaos Theorem
  • Credible coalitions?
  • Heresthetics
  • Agenda manipulation

Completely privatized
Education
x1
Completely public
Completely privatized
Completely public
Health Care
29
The Puzzle of Stability
  • Parliaments not typically chaotic
  • Institutional rules provide structure
  • Structure Induced Equilibria (Shepsle 1979)
  • Agenda Control
  • Discipline
  • Committee jurisdictions
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com