The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Democracy and Decision: The Pure Theory of Electoral Preference
Abstract
Do voters in large scale democracies reliably vote for the electoral outcomes most in their interest? Much of the literature on voting predicts that they do, but this book argues that fully rational voters will not, in fact, consistently vote for the political outcomes they prefer. The authors offer a theory of voting which they term an 'expressive' theory of electoral politics. This theory is shown to be more coherent and more consistent with actual observed voting behaviour. This important book offers a compelling challenge to the central premises of the prevailing theories of voting behaviour.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
DiMaggio, P., Braithwaite, V., & Levi, M. (1999) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2655590 · Cited by 377
Davidson, S., De Filippi, P., & Potts, J. (2016) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2744751 · Cited by 308
Environmentally significant behavior in the home
Stern, P. C. (2008) · The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Economic Behaviour · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511490118.015 · Cited by 50
The Complex Course of Ideological Change
Higgs, R. (2008) · The American Journal of Economics and Sociology · doi:10.1111/j.1536-7150.2008.00592.x · Cited by 45
Metadata
- Venue
- Cambridge University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 1993-03-26
- OpenAlex
- W4231516546
- Cited by
- 860
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 25.84
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Democracy and Decision: The Pure Theory of Electoral Preference. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/cbo9781139173544
- The paper
- Democracy and Decision: The Pure Theory of Electoral Preference. (1993). Cambridge University Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139173544
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
