Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-s82fj Total loading time: 0.511 Render date: 2022-09-27T03:12:12.995Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

JAMES BUCHANAN, GORDON TULLOCK, AND THE “RADICALLY IRRESPONSIBLE” ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE DECISIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 June 2022

Daniel Kuehn*
Affiliation:
Daniel Kuehn: Principal Research Associate, The Urban Institute. Email: dkuehn@urban.org.

Abstract

James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock took a keen interest in the United States Supreme Court’s reapportionment decisions of the 1960s, which established a “one person, one vote” standard for state legislative apportionment. This paper traces the long arc of Buchanan and Tullock’s opposition to the “one person, one vote” standard. The Calculus of Consent offers a highly qualified efficiency argument against “one person, one vote,” but over time Buchanan and Tullock grew even more vocally critical of the decisions. Buchanan ultimately advocated a constitutional amendment overturning “one person, one vote” in a private set of recommendations to Congressional Republicans. This paper additionally assesses Tullock’s 1987 complaint that scholars and judges neglected The Calculus of Consent’s analysis of reapportionment. A review of the reapportionment literature between 1962 and 1987 demonstrates that while The Calculus of Consent was frequently cited, the literature generally ignored its analysis of the efficiency of apportionment standards.

Type
Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the History of Economics Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This paper benefitted significantly from comments by Art Carden, Paul Dragos Aligica, Alexander Cartwright, Pedro Duarte, Andrew Farrant, David Glasner, Calvin TerBeek, and three anonymous reviewers.

References

REFERENCES

Adkins, Mary E. 2016. Making Modern Florida: How the Spirit of Reform Shaped a New State Constitution. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.Google Scholar
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. 1962. Apportionment of State Legislatures. Commission Report A-15.Google Scholar
Aranson, Peter. 1991. “Calhoun’s Constitutional Economics.” Constitutional Political Economy 2 (1): 3152.Google Scholar
Ash, Elliott, Chen, Daniel, and Naidu, Suresh. 2022. “Ideas Have Consequences: The Impact of Law and Economics on American Justice.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Number 29788.Google Scholar
Auerbach, Carl. 1964. “The Reapportionment Cases: One Person, One Vote—One Vote, One Value.” Supreme Court Review (1964): 187.Google Scholar
Baker v. Carr , 369 U.S. 186. 1962.Google Scholar
Banzhaf, John. 1966. “Multi-Member Electoral Districts. Do They Violate the ‘One Man, One Vote’ Principle?Yale Law Journal 75 (8): 13091338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banzhaf, John. 1967. “One Man? Votes: Mathematical Analysis of Voting Power and Effective Representation.” George Washington Law Review 36 (4): 808823.Google Scholar
Banzhaf, John. 1968. “One Man, 3.312 Votes: A Mathematical Analysis of the Electoral College.” Villanova Law Review 13 (2): 304332.Google Scholar
Boettke, Peter, and Marciano, Alain. 2017. “The Distance between Buchanan’s ‘An Economic Theory of Clubs’ and Tiebout’s ‘A Pure Theory of Local Public Expenditures.’European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 24 (2): 205237.Google Scholar
Buchanan, James M. 1941. “Gasoline Tax Sharing among Local Units of Government in Tennessee.” Master’s thesis, University of Tennessee. http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/2683. Accessed April 10, 2022.Google Scholar
Buchanan, James M. 1948. “Fiscal Equity in a Federal State.” PhD diss., University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Buchanan, James M. 1965. “An Economic Theory of Clubs.” Economica 32 (125): 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, James M. 1968. “Student Revolts, Academic Liberalism, and Constitutional Attitudes.” Social Research 35 (4): 666680.Google Scholar
Buchanan, James M. 1969. “Financing a Viable Federalism.” In Johnson, H. L., ed., State and Local Tax Problems. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, pp. 319.Google Scholar
Buchanan, James M. 1974a. “Good Economics—Bad Law.” Virginia Law Review 60 (3): 483492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, James M. 1974b. “Who Should Distribute What in a Federal System?” In Hochman, Harold M. and Peterson, George E., eds., Redistribution through Public Choice. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 2242.Google Scholar
Buchanan, James M. 1976. “The Justice of Natural Liberty.” Journal of Legal Studies 5 (1): 116.Google Scholar
Buchanan, James M. 1982. “Order Defined in the Process of Its Emergence.” Literature of Liberty 5 (5): 5.Google Scholar
Buchanan, James M. 1992. Better than Plowing, and Other Personal Essays. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Buchanan, James M. 2003. “Obituary: Justice among Natural Equals: Memorial Marker for John Rawls.” Public Choice 114 (3): iii–v.Google Scholar
Buchanan, James M. 2006. “The Virginia Renaissance in Political Economy: The 1960s Revisited.” In Koppl, Roger, ed., Money and Markets. London, UK: Routledge, pp. 3444.Google Scholar
Buchanan, James M., and Tullock, Gordon. [1962] 1999. The Calculus of Consent. Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. Inc.Google Scholar
Buchanan, James M., and Wagner, Richard E.. 1970. “An Efficiency Basis for Federal Fiscal Equalization.” In Margolis, Julius, ed., The Analysis of Public Output. New York: Columbia University Press and National Bureau of Economic Research, pp. 139158.Google Scholar
Cantrall, William R., and Nagel, Stuart S.. 1973. “The Effects of Reapportionment on the Passage of Nonexpenditure Legislation.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 219 (1): 269279.Google ScholarPubMed
Cartwright, Alexander C. 2016. “Good Economics—Bad Law: A 40-Year Natural Experiment.” New York University Journal of Law and Liberty 10 (626): 626648.Google Scholar
Cao, Siying. 2020. “Quantifying Economic Reasoning in Court: Judge Economic Sophistication and Pro-business Orientation.” Unpublished manuscript. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1U5tFHXqrcmNbCWOw5t7MqAcZ8BDMlMIN/view. Accessed April 9, 2022.Google Scholar
Cherrier, Beatrice, and Fleury, Jean-Baptiste. 2017. “Economists’ Interest in Collective Decision after World War II: A History.” Public Choice 172 (1–2): 2344.Google Scholar
Colegrove v. Green . 328 US 549. 1946.Google Scholar
Cooper, Melinda. 2021. “Infinite Regress: Virginia School Neoliberalism and the Tax Revolt.” Capitalism: A Journal of History and Economics 2 (1): 4187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis v. Mann . 377 US 678. 1964.Google Scholar
Denzau, Arthur T. 1985. “Constitutional Change and Agenda Control.” Public Choice 47 (1): 183217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert G Jr 1964. “Reapportionment in the Supreme Court and Congress: Constitutional Struggle for Fair Representation.” Michigan Law Review 63 (2): 209242.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert G Jr 1968a. Democratic Representation: Reapportionment in Law and Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert G Jr 1968b. “Representation Values and Reapportionment Practice: The Eschatology of ‘One Man, One Vote.’” In Pennock, J. Roland and Chapman, John W., eds., Representation. New York: Atherton Press, pp. 167198.Google Scholar
Donich, Patti. 1964. “Darden Scores Diminishing Power of State Governments.” Charlottesville Daily Progress 73 (155), June 8, 1964, p. 1.Google Scholar
Dowdy, G. Wayne. 2006. Mayor Crump Don’t Like It: Machine Politics in Memphis. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Durchslag, Melvyn R. 1982. “Salyer, Ball, and Holt: Reappraising the Right to Vote in Terms of Political Interest and Vote Dilution.” Case Western Reserve Law Review 33 (1): 150.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald M. 1967. “The Model of Rules.” University of Chicago Law Review 35 (1): 1446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleury, Jean-Baptiste, and Marciano, Alain. 2018. “The Making of a Constitutionalist: James Buchanan on Education.” History of Political Economy 50 (3): 511548.Google Scholar
Freund, Paul A. 1964. “New Vistas in Constitutional Law.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 112 (5): 631646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friddell, Guy, and Darden, Colgate. 1978. Colgate Darden: Conversations with Guy Friddell. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Joel H. 1971. “Alternative Methods of Implementation: A Political Analysis.” University of Cincinnati Law Review 40 (1): 131.Google Scholar
Grofman, Bernard, Brunell, Thomas, and Feld, Scott. 2012. “Towards a Theory of Bicameralism: The Neglected Contributions of the Calculus of Consent.” Public Choice 152 (1–2): 147161.Google Scholar
Haefele, Edwin T. 1971. “A Utility Theory of Representative Government.” American Economic Review 61 (3): 350367.Google Scholar
Hagan, Charles B. 1962. “The Bicameral Principle in State Legislatures.” Journal of Public Law 11: 310327.Google Scholar
Hanson, Royce. 1966. The Political Thicket: Reapportionment and Constitutional Democracy. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Heath, James O. 2017. To Face Down Dixie: South Carolina’s War on the Supreme Court in the Age of Civil Rights. Baton Rouge: LSU Press.Google Scholar
Hochman, Harold M., and Rodgers, James D.. 1977. “The Simple Politics of Distributional Preference.” In Juster, F. Thomas, ed., The Distribution of Economic Well-Being. Cambridge, MA: NBER, pp. 71114.Google Scholar
Howison, Jeffrey D. 2011. “‘This Is Not a Cotton Picker’s Dream’: Reapportionment, Conservative Ideology, and the Urban–Rural Divide.” Journal of Urban History 37 (5): 680693.Google Scholar
Israel, Jerold. 1963. “Nonpopulation Factors Relevant to an Acceptable Standard of Apportionment.” Notre Dame Lawyer 38: 499517.Google Scholar
Jankovic, Ivan. 2018. The American Counter-Revolution in Favor of Liberty: How Americans Resisted Modern State, 1765–1850. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Key, Valdimer O. [1949] 1984. Southern Politics in State and Nation: A New Edition. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
Kilpatrick, James Jackson. 1965. “Foreword.” In One Man, One Vote. Richmond: Virginia Commission on Constitutional Government, pp. 36.Google Scholar
Kreider, Clement H. 2012. “Is the ‘Rational Actor’ a Calhounian?” PhD diss., Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Krzyzaniak, Marian. 1970. “Review of State and Local Tax Problems edited by Harry, L. Johnson.” Southern Economic Journal 36 (4): 476–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuehn, Daniel. 2018. “Accommodation Within the Broad Structure of Voluntary Society: Buchanan and Nutter on School Segregation.” Available at SSRN 3308162. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3308162. Accessed May 28, 2022.Google Scholar
Kuehn, Daniel. 2022. “The Hardest of All the Problems: Hochman, Rodgers, and Buchanan on Pareto Optimal Redistribution.” Erasmus Journal of Philosophy and Economics 15 (1).Google Scholar
Lassiter, Matthew D. 1998. “A ‘Fighting Moderate’: Benjamin Muse’s Search for the Submerged South.” In Lassiter, M. and Lewis, A., eds., The Moderates’ Dilemma: Massive Resistance to School Desegregation in Virginia. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, pp. 168201.Google Scholar
Lee, Dongwon. 2016. “Supermajority Rule and Bicameral Bargaining.” Public Choice 169 (1–2): 5375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Dongwon, and Park, Sangwon. 2018. “Court-Ordered Redistricting and the Law of 1/n.” Public Choice 176 (3–4): 507528.Google Scholar
Levy, David M., and Peart, Sandra J.. 2020. Towards an Economics of Natural Equals: A Documentary History of the Early Virginia School. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, John. 1963. “Speech at the March on Washington (28 August 1963).” Edited by Gareth Pauley. Voices of Democracy: The U.S. Oratory Project. https://voicesofdemocracy.umd.edu/lewis-speech-at-the-march-on-washington-speech-text. Accessed May 29, 2022.Google Scholar
MacLean, Nancy. 2017. Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
Marciano, Alain. 2007. “Value and Exchange in Law and Economics: Buchanan versus Posner.” Review of Austrian Economics 20 (2–3): 187200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marciano, Alain. 2018. “From Highway to Clubs: Buchanan and the Pricing of Public Goods.” In Wagner, Richard, ed., James M. Buchanan: A Theorist of Political Economy and Social Philosophy. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 713737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marciano, Alain. 2019. “Buchanan and Public Finance: The Tennessee Years.” Review of Austrian Economics 32 (1): 2146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medema, Steven. 2009. The Hesitant Hand: Taming Self-Interest in the History of Economic Ideas. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medema, Steven. 2011. “A Case of Mistaken Identity: George Stigler, ‘The Problem of Social Cost,’ and the Coase Theorem.” European Journal of Law and Economics 31 (1): 1138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medema, Steven. 2014a. “The Curious Treatment of the Coase Theorem in the Environmental Economics Literature, 1960–1979.” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 8 (1): 3957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medema, Steven. 2014b. “Debating Law’s Irrelevance: Legal Scholarship and the Coase Theorem in the 1960s.” Texas A&M Law Review 2 (2): 159213.Google Scholar
Medema, Steven. 2014c. “Juris Prudence: Calabresi’s Uneasy Relationship with the Coase Theorem.” Law and Contemporary Problems 77 (65): 6595.Google Scholar
Medema, Steven. 2019. “Failure to Appear”: The Use of the Coase Theorem in Judicial Opinions.” Unpublished manuscript. https://hope.econ.duke.edu/sites/hope.econ.duke.edu/files/Medema%20workshop%20paper.pdf. Accessed April 14, 2022.Google Scholar
Medema, Steven. 2020. “The Coase Theorem at Sixty.” Journal of Economic Literature 58 (4): 10451128.Google Scholar
Michelman, Frank I. 1977. “Political Markets and Community Self-Determination: Competing Judicial Models of Local Government Legitimacy.” Indiana Law Journal 53 (2): 145206.Google Scholar
Mickey, Robert. 2015. Paths Out of Dixie: The Democratization of Authoritarian Enclaves in America’s Deep South, 1944–1972. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ordeshook, Peter C. 1992. “Constitutional Stability.” Constitutional Political Economy 3 (2): 137175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, Richard. 1973. Economic Analysis of Law. Boston: Little, Brown and Company,Google Scholar
Prendergast, William B. 1953. “Other Activities.” American Political Science Review 47 (1): 279283.Google Scholar
Rae, Douglas W. 1971. “Reapportionment and Political Democracy.” In Polsby, N. W., ed., Reapportionment in the 1970s. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 91111.Google Scholar
Rae, Douglas W. 1975. “The Limits of Consensual Decision.” American Political Science Review 69 (4): 12701294.Google Scholar
Reapportionment.” 1966. Harvard Law Review 79 (6): 12261287.Google Scholar
Reynolds v. Sims . 377 US 533. 1964.Google Scholar
Rudolph, Wallace M. 1964. “The Reapportionment Cases: A Conservative Defense of Individual Rights.” Nebraska Law Review 43 (4): 854869.Google Scholar
Salter, Alexander W. 2015. “Calhoun’s Concurrent Majority as a Generality Norm.” Constitutional Political Economy 26 (3): 375390.Google Scholar
Schuck, Peter H. 1987. “The Thickest Thicket: Partisan Gerrymandering and Judicial Regulation of Politics.” Columbia Law Review 87 (7): 13251384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shank, Alan. 1969. New Jersey Reapportionment Politics: Strategies and Tactics in the Legislative Process. Rutherford: Farleigh Dickinson University Press.Google Scholar
Shapley, Lloyd, and Grofman, Bernard. 1984. “Optimizing Group Judgmental Accuracy in the Presence of Interdependencies.” Public Choice 43 (3): 329343.Google Scholar
Shelley, Fred M. 1982. “A Constitutional Choice Approach to Electoral District Boundary Delineation.” Political Geography Quarterly 1 (4): 341350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, Bryant. 2000. “The Devaluation of the Vote: Legislative Apportionment and Inequality in South Carolina, 1890–1962.” South Carolina Historical Magazine 101 (3): 234252.Google Scholar
Slobodian, Quinn. 2018. Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, J. Douglas. 2002. Managing White Supremacy: Race, Politics, and Citizenship in Jim Crow Virginia. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Smith, J. Douglas. 2014. On Democracy’s Doorstep: The Inside Story of How the Supreme Court Brought “One Person, One Vote” to the United States. New York: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
Sweeney, James R. 2013. “Postscript to Massive Resistance: The Decline and Fall of the Virginia Commission on Constitutional Government.” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 121 (1): 45.Google Scholar
Tabarrok, Alexander, and Cowen, Tyler. 1992. “The Public Choice Theory of John C. Calhoun.” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 148 (4): 655674.Google Scholar
Teaford, Jon C. 2002. The Rise of the States: Evolution of American State Government. Baltimore: JHU Press.Google Scholar
Tullock, Gordon. 1965. “Constitutional Mythology.” New Individualist Review 3: 1317.Google Scholar
Tullock, Gordon. 1967. Toward a Mathematics of Politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Tullock, Gordon. 1975. “Comment on Rae’s ‘The Limits of Consensual Decision.’American Political Science Review 69 (4): 12951297.Google Scholar
Tullock, Gordon. 1987. “The Calculus: Postscript after 25 Years.” Cato Journal 7 (2): 313329.Google Scholar
Tullock, Gordon. 1992. “Computerizing Politics.” Mathematical and Computer Modelling 16 (8–9): 5965.Google Scholar
Ulmer, Sidney S. 1963. “The Role of ‘Costs’ in Political Choice: A Review: James M. Buchanan and Gordon Tullock, The Calculus of Consent.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 7 (2): 171176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, Richard E. 1966. “Pressure Groups and Political Entrepreneurs: A Review Article.” Papers on Non-Market Decision Making 1 (1): 161170.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, J. Harvie. 1968. Harry Byrd and the Changing Face of Virginia Politics, 1945–1966. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Wright, Gavin. 2013. Sharing the Prize: The Economics of the Civil Rights Revolution in the American South. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

JAMES BUCHANAN, GORDON TULLOCK, AND THE “RADICALLY IRRESPONSIBLE” ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE DECISIONS
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

JAMES BUCHANAN, GORDON TULLOCK, AND THE “RADICALLY IRRESPONSIBLE” ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE DECISIONS
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

JAMES BUCHANAN, GORDON TULLOCK, AND THE “RADICALLY IRRESPONSIBLE” ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE DECISIONS
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *