A comparison of cumulative voting and generalized plurality voting

In market based societies consumers are able to express the intensity of their preference for an object by paying more for it. However, under some voting systems, consumers are unable to express the intensity of their preference for a candidate due to the constraint of the “one person, one vote” principle. Cumulative voting maintains the equality of the “one person, one vote” principle by allotting each voter the same number of votes, while also allowing for expression of intensity of candidate preference. This paper provides an experimental analysis of voter behavior under different voting systems.     

A note on the alleged decomposition of sociology

The Decomposition of Sociology, by Irving Lewis Horowitz, 1993, New York. Oxford University Press.     

Greg Grandin and Thomas Miller Klubock, eds. 'Truth Commissions: State Terror, History, and Memory,' a special issue of Radical History Review 97

What does Radical History Review have to say about truth commissions?The journal gives them mixed reviews in this special issue,Truth Commissions: State Terror, History, and Memory. Accordingto the authors of the three full-length articles which makeup the volume, truth commissions’ treatment of past violencemay sometimes hew too closely to depoliticized narratives ofindividual victims and perpetrators – foregoing deeperaccounts of structural violence. Or, their     

A wink and a nod: a conceptual map of responsibility and accountability in bureaucratic organizations

Abstract: The article provides a conceptual analysis of the ideals of responsibility and accountability. It asks and tries to answer such questions as: When is it legitimate to blame top officials of an organization for mistakes made by personnel below them in the bureaucratic hierarchy? When things go wrong in a large complex organization, such as the Canadian Armed Forces, who is responsible? When, if ever, is a plea of ignorance - “I just didn't know about the cover up” - a good excuse? The multiple ambiguities of the term “responsibility” are explored, and it is shown how a failure to appreciate this ambiguity can easily result in confusion and misunderstanding. Sommaire: Cette étude présente une analyse conceptuelle des idéaux de la responsabilité et de l'obligation de rendre des comptes. Elle pose et tente de répondre aux questions suivantes: Quand est-il légitime de blâimer les hauts dirigeants d'une organisation pour les erreurs commises par leurs subalternes ? Quand les choses vont mal dans une grande organisation complexe telle que les forces armées du Canada, qui est responsable ? Est-il jamais justifié de plaider l'ignorance - ‘Je n'étais tout simplement pas au courant du camouflage ’? Cette étude insiste également sur l'ambigüité du terme ‘ responsabilité’ et montre avec quelle facilité cette ambigüité peut occasionner la confusion et les malentendus. Elle montre également les conséquences d'affirmer que quelqu'un a ‘ provoqué’ un évènement ou a fortuitement contribué, par un geste ou une omission, à ce qu'il se réalise. Le lecteur découvrira en quoi la responsabilité et la moralité ne font pas toujours bon ménage.