Applying sequential choice on voting and election is a means of solving a classic formal logic problem, i.e. how to elect one person among more than two alternatives. Democracy with Sequential Choice and Fund Voting provides an answer to Coleman’s vision of political money (political science, economics). The book reviews Arrow’s work on group choice (economics). The book introduces fund voting for budgeting and project planning, land and urban planning, as well as for resources utilization (economics, public administration science, environmental science, resources economics) The application of sequential choice and fund voting is examined under that perspective of sociology, which concerns the assumption that societies owe their existence to common tasks, and likewise, under the main theme of anthropology, i.e. what generates human society and keeps it going.
Contribution at the annual Dutch-Belgian Political Science Conference, Leiden, June 8th 2018
In 2010 Iceland elected a constitutional assembly applying single transferable vote (STV). I analysed the election in a newspaper article (Election of persons—two elected). Later a periodical published by Institute of Public Administration and Politics, University of Iceland, published an analysis by Þorkell Helgason (ÞH) of the election results. I have commented the analysis. In the following two points of the comment are retold (notes 2 and 3).
In the theory of collective choice, which among other things is studied in economics, political science, game theory, philosophy (logic) and sociology, some six news have been presented since 1970, i.e.
Let us examine the contribution of the economics to Iceland's fishery control after most of the fishing banks came under Icelandic rule forty years ago. In my article “Ideas behind Iceland's fishery control“ I documented that prominent economic advisers in Iceland had thought out ideas on how this control should be. An economic provision was referred, making an appropriate utilization of the commons, the fishing banks after all being commons. This provision has never been applied.
Now in February, 2016, four months before the presidential election in Iceland, held every four year, there is uncertainty concerning candidates. Some are worried, if the number of candidates will be as much as 10, as some seem to expect, that the president can be elected with only 11% of the votes. In that case maybe 89% of the voters is directly against him, but the ballots will not show it. Although the case does not become so extreme one should be aware of the fact that only one Icelandic president has been elected with the majority of the votes, namely Kristjan Eldjarn in 1968. Vigdis Finnbogadottir was elected president with a third of the votes in 1980. When Olafur Ragnar Grimsson was elected president for first time (in 1996) he received just a little more than 40% of the votes. This didn´t mean that those who then voted for him backed him up from then. The rule for presidential election in Iceland does therefore, as a matter of fact, not guarantee that the president is really backed up neither in his first period nor later.
In January 1962 the Icelandic society Frjals menning (Congress for Cultural Freedom) organized a conference in connection with the plans of the EFTA-states to join EEC. The conference was held to discuss what stance Iceland, not being an EFTA-member at that time, should take. Later the discussion was published. On that occcacion the discussion on resource taxation in Iceland, which is still going on, began, by the following contribution by the economist Bjarni Bragi Jonsson: „EEC should be able to understand that we are the owner of these resources and that we need them, and that we in some way need to limit the exploitation of them and to tax this resource. As a matter of fact we have done just that by the tariff policy. Therefore, I will maintain that if we become a member of the federation which I would mean should be as an associated member, it would be realistic to raise the price of foreign currency somewhat to offset the reduction of customs duties, and simultaneously take a corresponding part of the foreign exchange income from the fishing industry and view this as a resource tax for the benefit of the nation.“ — Raising the price of foreign currency is normally called devaluation.