Questions & explanations
1. Give an example of a voting method that does NOT always elect the Condorcet winner.
Plurality voting (where each voter picks only one candidate) often fails to elect the Condorcet winner. For example, three candidates: A, B, C. 40% prefer A > B > C, 35% B > C > A, 25% C > A > B. A beats B 65-35, beats C 40-25? Actually A beats C 40+? Wait, recalc: A beats C? 40 (A first) + 25? No, careful: In pairwise, A vs B: A gets 40 + 25? Actually, 40 prefer A over B, 35 prefer B over A, 25? They prefer C first, then A, so A over B? Yes, A gets 40+25=65, B gets 35. So A beats B. A vs C: A gets 40, C gets 35+25=60? Actually, 35 prefer C over A (since B>C>A, so C > A) and 25 prefer C over A (C first), so C beats A 60-40. So no Condorcet winner? Actually A beats B, but loses to C; B beats? B vs C: B gets 40? No, B gets 35 (from B first) plus 40? Wait, B vs C: 40 prefer A first, then B over C? Preference A>B>C, so B over C. So B gets 40 from those? And 35 prefer B first, so B > C, so B gets 40+35=75, C gets 25. So B beats C. So cycle: A beats B, B beats C, C beats A. No Condorcet winner. But if there were a Condorcet winner, plurality might not elect them. For instance, 48% A, 47% B
2. Give an example of a situation where Schulze and ranked pairs might give different winners.
Suppose 3 candidates and these pairwise margins: A beats B by 5, B beats C by 4, C beats A by 3. Also, B beats A? No cycle? Actually it's a cycle. Ranked pairs: locks strongest margin A>B (5), then B>C (4), then C>A (3) would create cycle so skip, and winner is A (since A beats B, and B beats C, but C beats A? Actually the locked graph: A beats B, B beats C, so A beats C indirectly, so winner is A. Schulze: beatpaths: A to B: A>B (5), B to A: B>C (4) + C>A (3) = min(4,3)=3, so A's path stronger (5>3). A to C: A>B (5)+B>C (4)= min(5,4)=4, C to A: C>A (3) so stronger is A (4>3). So A beats both in path, so A wins. Same. Need a case where different. In complex cycles, they can diverge. For example, 4 candidates with certain margins, ranked pairs might lock in a different order. But I won't invent a specific example here.
3. Why might a voter with many votes have less power than expected? Use an example.
A voter with many votes might have less power than expected if other voters can combine to reach the quota without them. For example, in a weighted system: A has 4 votes, B has 3, C has 2, quota is 5. The winning coalitions: {A,B}, {A,C}, {A,B,C}. A is pivotal in all three? Actually in {A,B}, A is pivotal because without A, B only has 3 <5. In {A,C}, A pivotal. In {A,B,C}, A is not pivotal because removing A leaves B and C with 5. So A is pivotal in 2 out of 3 winning coalitions. B is pivotal only in {A,B}. C is pivotal only in {A,C}. So A has power 2/3, B and C each 1/3. But A has 4 votes, more than half the total 9? No, 4/9 is 44%, but power is 66%—so actually more power than vote share. But if the quota were higher, say quota 8, then A alone can't win; A needs B or C. Then A's power might be less than expected.
4. Compare how life tenure and fixed terms affect public trust in the judiciary.
Life tenure can increase public trust because people believe judges are not influenced by the government that appointed them long ago. Judges can make unpopular but correct decisions, which builds trust in the rule of law. On the other hand, fixed terms might reduce trust if people think judges are trying to please the government to get reappointed. However, if the system for choosing judges is open and based on merit, fixed terms can also gain trust by ensuring judges are regularly evaluated. In some countries, fixed terms with no possibility of reappointment give the best of both: independence and accountability. So the effect on trust depends on the details of how each system works.
5. How does cause lawyering differ from ordinary legal practice?
Cause lawyering means lawyers choose cases not just for money but to advance a social or political cause, like fighting for women's rights or ending poverty. Ordinary legal practice usually focuses on the client's private problem, like a contract dispute or a divorce. Cause lawyers often work with activist groups and take on cases that can change laws or public policy. They might work for low pay or for free because they believe in the cause. For example, a cause lawyer might defend protesters to support free speech. This type of lawyering can be very powerful for social change, but it also brings challenges like personal risk and limited resources.
6. Compare a rentier state with a country that relies on income taxes from citizens. Which one gives citizens more political power?
A country that relies on income taxes tends to give citizens more political power. When the government needs tax money from people, it has to listen to their demands or risk losing support. Citizens can vote or protest to change policies that affect their taxes. In a rentier state, the government does not need citizens' money, so it does not have to respond to their wishes. Citizens have little leverage to ask for better government or rights. They may receive free services, but they cannot control the ruler. Therefore, democratic control is usually stronger in tax-dependent countries. Rentier states often stay authoritarian because of this.
7. Compare the effects of majoritarian systems vs. proportional systems on voter satisfaction.
In majoritarian systems like first-past-the-post, voters in safe seats may feel their vote does not matter because the outcome is predictable. This can lower satisfaction and turnout. Proportional systems give more voters a sense that their vote helped elect someone, especially if they support smaller parties. This often leads to higher satisfaction with representation. However, proportional systems can produce weak coalition governments that are slow to act, which may frustrate voters. Majoritarian systems usually deliver single-party governments that act quickly, but many voters are left out. So, each has trade-offs for voter happiness.
8. How does administrative law relate to judicial review?
Administrative law is the set of rules that govern how government agencies work and make decisions. It says what procedures agencies must follow, like giving notice and listening to people before making a rule. Judicial review is the process by which courts make sure agencies follow these rules. For example, if an agency creates a new regulation without public comment, a court might strike it down. So administrative law gives the standards, and judicial review enforces them. Together, they keep government actions within the law. Without judicial review, agencies could ignore administrative law, and people would have no way to fight back.
9. How can an authoritarian regime adapt when faced with international pressure for democracy?
When other countries or international organizations push for democracy, a resilient authoritarian regime may pretend to reform. It might create a new law that seems more democratic but still keeps real control. It could allow a few opposition parties but make sure they cannot win. Sometimes it changes the constitution to allow the ruler to stay longer. The regime also tries to find allies among other authoritarian countries to strengthen its position. It may use nationalism to blame foreign pressure as an attack on the country's culture or independence. By making small changes, the regime can satisfy outside demands without losing power.
10. Compare public interest litigation with a normal lawsuit where an individual sues for personal harm.
In a normal lawsuit, the person who sues must show that they personally suffered harm, like a car accident injury. The court decides on compensation for that individual. In PIL, the person suing does not have to prove direct personal harm. They can act on behalf of the public, for example, to stop a harmful dam project that would affect many villagers. The goal of PIL is to protect the public good, not just one person. The court may give broad orders, like telling the government to build schools. So PIL is more flexible and can create wider change. However, normal lawsuits are better for getting money damages for a specific victim.
11. Why might cause lawyering be controversial in some countries?
Cause lawyering can be controversial because it mixes law with politics. Some people think lawyers should only focus on legal rules, not on advancing a social or political agenda. If cause lawyers take on high-profile cases against the government, they might be seen as enemies or activists. This can lead to threats, violence, or legal trouble for them. Also, some argue that cause lawyers may ignore the law when it does not fit their cause. Critics say this can weaken respect for the legal system. Supporters say cause lawyering is necessary to protect human rights and make society fairer, especially where the government is unjust.
12. Why is it important for courts to review executive actions related to individual rights?
It is important because without review, the government could violate people's rights without any consequence. For example, if the police arrest someone without a good reason, the court can review the arrest and order the person released. This protects the right to freedom. Also, when the government takes away a benefit like a license or a job, the person should have a chance to argue. Judicial review ensures that the government treats people fairly and respects their rights. It gives ordinary people a way to challenge powerful officials. This helps maintain trust in the system and prevents the government from becoming arbitrary.