Suchergebnisse

Saltman's comment (PS, July 2004, 383) simply ignores the bulk of my previous letter (PS, January 2004, 1–2) which dealt with Alabama. I gather that there he agrees with Russell and myself. Thus, there is no dispute on the question of whether Nixon or Kennedy had more popular votes in 1960. His criticism concerns my feeling, originally suggested by Russell, that with more political honesty on the part of the Chicago and Texas machines, Nixon might have taken the Electoral College, too. He doesn't specifically dispute my statement that the difference in Illinois was "smaller than the usual number of votes produced by the Chicago machine from graveyards and empty lots."

I wish to thank Friedrich Schneider, University of Linz, and Anne van Aaken, Humboldt‐University Berlin, for their very helpful comments on this paper. Special thanks also go to Stephan Meier, University of Zurich, for helping me revise the paper.

"Offiziell bezeichnen sich heute die meisten Staaten als Demokratien, eine genauere Analyse zeigt aber, dass das Mehrheitsprinzip durch eine grosse Zahl von konkurrierenden Prinzipien und Einschränkungen stark relativiert wird. In der Geschichte begegnen wir vorwiegend gemischten Regierungsformen, die bemerkenswert erfolgreich waren." (Autorenreferat)

A consequence of income redistribution may well be to make everyone (including lower‐income groups to which redistribution takes place) worse off after a period of years. Possibly income redistribution might gain consent because of risk aversion. The paper also draws attention to the tendency for people to be more concerned about poverty close at hand rather than far away.