Publications
2020
S.A. Bloks
Constituencies in Electoral Design. A Response to and an Extension of The Concept of Constituency by Rehfeld. Masters Thesis
Leiden University, 2020, (Supervised by T. Fossen).
BibTeX | Tags: Democracy, Elections, Representation | Links:
@mastersthesis{Bloks2020,
title = {Constituencies in Electoral Design. A Response to and an Extension of The Concept of Constituency by Rehfeld.},
author = {S.A. Bloks},
url = {http://suzannebloks.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Bloks_Constituencies-in-Electoral-Design_Dissertation-MA-2020.pdf},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-07-08},
school = {Leiden University},
note = {Supervised by T. Fossen},
keywords = {Democracy, Elections, Representation},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {mastersthesis}
}
2019
S.A. Bloks
Are Referendums and Parliamentary Elections Reconcilable? The Implications of Three Voting Paradoxes. Journal Article
In: Moral Philosophy and Politics, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 281-311, 2019.
Abstract | BibTeX | Tags: Democracy, Elections, Majority voting, Referendums | Links:
@article{S.A.Bloks2019,
title = {Are Referendums and Parliamentary Elections Reconcilable? The Implications of Three Voting Paradoxes.},
author = {S.A. Bloks},
url = {http://suzannebloks.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Bloks_Referendums_and_Parliamentary-Elections-MOPP2019.pdf},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1515/mopp-2018-0055},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-11-17},
journal = {Moral Philosophy and Politics},
volume = {6},
number = {2},
pages = {281-311},
abstract = {In representative democracies, referendum voting and parliamentary elections provide two fundamentally different methods for determining the majority opinion. We use three mathematical paradoxes – so-called majority voting paradoxes – to show that referendum voting can reverse the outcome of a parliamentary election, even if the same group of voters have expressed the same preferences on the issues considered in the referendums and the parliamentary election. This insight about the systemic contrarieties between referendum voting and parliamentary elections sheds a new light on the debate about the supplementary value of referendums in representative democracies. Using this insight, we will suggest legal conditions for the implementation of referendums in representative democracies that can pre-empt the conflict between the two methods for determining the majority opinion.},
keywords = {Democracy, Elections, Majority voting, Referendums},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
In representative democracies, referendum voting and parliamentary elections provide two fundamentally different methods for determining the majority opinion. We use three mathematical paradoxes – so-called majority voting paradoxes – to show that referendum voting can reverse the outcome of a parliamentary election, even if the same group of voters have expressed the same preferences on the issues considered in the referendums and the parliamentary election. This insight about the systemic contrarieties between referendum voting and parliamentary elections sheds a new light on the debate about the supplementary value of referendums in representative democracies. Using this insight, we will suggest legal conditions for the implementation of referendums in representative democracies that can pre-empt the conflict between the two methods for determining the majority opinion.
2018
S.A. Bloks
Referendums in Representative Democracies. Law and the Mathematics of Voting. Masters Thesis
Utrecht University, 2018, (Supervised by R. Nehmelman and J.H. Gerards).
Abstract | BibTeX | Tags: Democracy, Elections, Majority voting, Referendums | Links:
@mastersthesis{Bloks2018d,
title = {Referendums in Representative Democracies. Law and the Mathematics of Voting.},
author = {S.A. Bloks},
url = {http://suzannebloks.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Bloks_Referendums-in-Representative-Democracies_Dissertation-LLM.pdf},
year = {2018},
date = {2018-11-08},
school = {Utrecht University},
abstract = {European representative democracies are currently facing the challenges of rising populist powers and a decline in political legitimacy, which is accompanied by an increasing demand for more direct forms of democracy. The most widely discussed direct democratic instrument is the instrument of referendums, but does supplementing representative democracies with referendums have the desired effects?
The thesis deals with the question of the supplementary values of referendums in representative democracies. Opinions are divided on this topic. A variety of arguments is used by proponents and opponents of referendums about citizen’s knowledge and capacity, citizen’s power and representative’s power and prestige. Proponents and opponents do not seem to agree on the premises of these arguments and, furthermore, on how to weigh these arguments against each other. Hence, it is a currently unsettled question whether, and if yes, how referendums could and should be combined with representative democracy.
This question is addressed in the thesis from a multidisciplinary angle: a contribution to the legal-political debate about referendums in representative democracies is made by combining the legal-political arguments with mathematical insights. The mathematical insights show that the arguments on both sides of the debate about the supplementary value of referendums should be nuanced and, hence, the insights can help to find common ground between proponents and opponents of referendums in representative democracies.
The thesis consists of two articles. The first article, titled ‘Are referendums and parliamentary elections reconcilable’, examines the role of referendums in representative democracies in general. It looks at parliamentary systems in representative democracies and asks whether referendums and parliamentary elections can and should be combined. By drawing on three mathematical paradoxes, the article shows that referendums and parliamentary elections represent two different voting systems that could be contradictory. Because of the systemic contrarieties between referendums and parliamentary elections, the article argues that referendums should only be introduced in representative democratic systems with parliamentary elections under certain strict legal conditions. This article is published in the Journal for Moral Philosophy and Politics.
The second article, titled ‘De Wet raadgevend referendum afschaffen of verbeteren?’ (Abolishing or improving the Dutch Consultative referendum law?), focusses on referendums in the Netherlands. In particular, it considers the decision of the Dutch government to abolish the Dutch Consultative referendum law. In the article, it is argued that the government’s arguments for abolishing the law do not justify this decision and instead ask for improving the law. Using mathematical insights about the effects of quorum requirements in referendums, suggestions are given for changing the quorum requirement in the law. These changes could solve the problems of the Consultative referendum law that the Dutch government raised. This article is published in het Nederlands Juristenblad (NJB).
The research of this dissertation was awarded the Dare to Cross Over prize 2017 by Utrecht University, which is a prize for interdisciplinary graduate research.},
note = {Supervised by R. Nehmelman and J.H. Gerards},
keywords = {Democracy, Elections, Majority voting, Referendums},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {mastersthesis}
}
European representative democracies are currently facing the challenges of rising populist powers and a decline in political legitimacy, which is accompanied by an increasing demand for more direct forms of democracy. The most widely discussed direct democratic instrument is the instrument of referendums, but does supplementing representative democracies with referendums have the desired effects?
The thesis deals with the question of the supplementary values of referendums in representative democracies. Opinions are divided on this topic. A variety of arguments is used by proponents and opponents of referendums about citizen’s knowledge and capacity, citizen’s power and representative’s power and prestige. Proponents and opponents do not seem to agree on the premises of these arguments and, furthermore, on how to weigh these arguments against each other. Hence, it is a currently unsettled question whether, and if yes, how referendums could and should be combined with representative democracy.
This question is addressed in the thesis from a multidisciplinary angle: a contribution to the legal-political debate about referendums in representative democracies is made by combining the legal-political arguments with mathematical insights. The mathematical insights show that the arguments on both sides of the debate about the supplementary value of referendums should be nuanced and, hence, the insights can help to find common ground between proponents and opponents of referendums in representative democracies.
The thesis consists of two articles. The first article, titled ‘Are referendums and parliamentary elections reconcilable’, examines the role of referendums in representative democracies in general. It looks at parliamentary systems in representative democracies and asks whether referendums and parliamentary elections can and should be combined. By drawing on three mathematical paradoxes, the article shows that referendums and parliamentary elections represent two different voting systems that could be contradictory. Because of the systemic contrarieties between referendums and parliamentary elections, the article argues that referendums should only be introduced in representative democratic systems with parliamentary elections under certain strict legal conditions. This article is published in the Journal for Moral Philosophy and Politics.
The second article, titled ‘De Wet raadgevend referendum afschaffen of verbeteren?’ (Abolishing or improving the Dutch Consultative referendum law?), focusses on referendums in the Netherlands. In particular, it considers the decision of the Dutch government to abolish the Dutch Consultative referendum law. In the article, it is argued that the government’s arguments for abolishing the law do not justify this decision and instead ask for improving the law. Using mathematical insights about the effects of quorum requirements in referendums, suggestions are given for changing the quorum requirement in the law. These changes could solve the problems of the Consultative referendum law that the Dutch government raised. This article is published in het Nederlands Juristenblad (NJB).
The research of this dissertation was awarded the Dare to Cross Over prize 2017 by Utrecht University, which is a prize for interdisciplinary graduate research.
The thesis deals with the question of the supplementary values of referendums in representative democracies. Opinions are divided on this topic. A variety of arguments is used by proponents and opponents of referendums about citizen’s knowledge and capacity, citizen’s power and representative’s power and prestige. Proponents and opponents do not seem to agree on the premises of these arguments and, furthermore, on how to weigh these arguments against each other. Hence, it is a currently unsettled question whether, and if yes, how referendums could and should be combined with representative democracy.
This question is addressed in the thesis from a multidisciplinary angle: a contribution to the legal-political debate about referendums in representative democracies is made by combining the legal-political arguments with mathematical insights. The mathematical insights show that the arguments on both sides of the debate about the supplementary value of referendums should be nuanced and, hence, the insights can help to find common ground between proponents and opponents of referendums in representative democracies.
The thesis consists of two articles. The first article, titled ‘Are referendums and parliamentary elections reconcilable’, examines the role of referendums in representative democracies in general. It looks at parliamentary systems in representative democracies and asks whether referendums and parliamentary elections can and should be combined. By drawing on three mathematical paradoxes, the article shows that referendums and parliamentary elections represent two different voting systems that could be contradictory. Because of the systemic contrarieties between referendums and parliamentary elections, the article argues that referendums should only be introduced in representative democratic systems with parliamentary elections under certain strict legal conditions. This article is published in the Journal for Moral Philosophy and Politics.
The second article, titled ‘De Wet raadgevend referendum afschaffen of verbeteren?’ (Abolishing or improving the Dutch Consultative referendum law?), focusses on referendums in the Netherlands. In particular, it considers the decision of the Dutch government to abolish the Dutch Consultative referendum law. In the article, it is argued that the government’s arguments for abolishing the law do not justify this decision and instead ask for improving the law. Using mathematical insights about the effects of quorum requirements in referendums, suggestions are given for changing the quorum requirement in the law. These changes could solve the problems of the Consultative referendum law that the Dutch government raised. This article is published in het Nederlands Juristenblad (NJB).
The research of this dissertation was awarded the Dare to Cross Over prize 2017 by Utrecht University, which is a prize for interdisciplinary graduate research.