1) In Denmark, students are paid by the government to attend college and receive a monthly stipend of $900, graduating without debt. In the US, students average $30,000 in debt prior to graduation due to rising tuition costs. 2) Denmark uses a proportional representation electoral system that accurately represents voter preferences, leading to support for public goods like free higher education. The US uses a single-member district plurality system that misrepresents voter preferences by favoring large, wealthy parties. 3) The average voter in Denmark earns similar incomes as average earners, so preferences for public goods like education are accurately reflected in policy. In the US, average voters earn more and favor lower taxes over public

1.
The Reason I have to Work through College but not Danes
Brittney Huff
PSC 3304.03
Kudelia
1 December 2015

2. Since 1985, the cost of college tuition in the United States has risen over 500 percent. A 1
student in a university in the United States, on average, accumulates $30,000 worth of student
debt prior to graduation. Across the globe though, in Denmark, students are paid by the
government to go to college and usually receive a monthly stipend of $900. They also graduate 2
debt free. Though both countries are representative democracies, their electoral systems
represent their peoples’ preferences differently, and therefore, affect the importance placed on
certain public goods. Kenneth Shepsle defines public goods as nonexcludable and nonrivalrous. 3
These means public goods are for everyone to enjoy, whether the recipient has paid for the
privilege or not, and that one citizen’s use of the public good does not diminish the possibility of
use available for everyone else.
Political scientists Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel created a cultural map of the
countries of the world. The graph’s y­axis is a measure of tradition versus secular­rational 4
values and the x­axis is a measure of survival versus self­expression values. Denmark and the
United States are not surprisingly close to one another. They are almost the exact same on the
x­axis, though Denmark is closer to the secular­rational values on the y­axis. It would seem then,
that they would value the same public goods. So, why is college free in Denmark but not the US?
Students in Denmark are able to attend college for free because their proportional
representation electoral system accurately represents the want or need for this public good.
Proportional representation systems more accurately translate voter preferences into policy than
single­member district plurality systems.
Single­member district plurality electoral systems, like that of the United States, reward
only the winner of the election, even if the winner of the election did not win a majority of the
votes. SMDP systems often misrepresent the preferences of voters because if you’re not first, 5
you’re last. This also encourages two­party systems as well because of strategic voting. Voters
who would prefer a certain smaller party candidate weigh their options based on who has the
capability to win, not who they would actually prefer, and cast their vote that way. For example
in an SMDP system, if candidate A receives 35% of the vote, candidate B receives 33%, and
candidate C receives 32%, then candidate A wins and 65% of voters have their preferences
denied. Supporters of candidate C are pretty much casting their vote into the garbage can, and
would be better off strategically voting for one of the front runner candidates. So, SMDP systems
often produce two­party systems by punishing smaller parties and are misrepresentative of the
voter populous as a whole. This analysis is known as Durverger’s law. 6
1
Rick Noak. “Why Danish Students are Paid to go to College,” ​The​ ​Washington Post, ​Feb. 4, 2015​.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/04/why­danish­students­are­paid­to­go­to­college/.
2
Ibid.
3
Kenneth Shepsle. “Public Goods, Externalities, and the Commons,” W.W. Norton & Co., 2010. pp 306­12.
4
Inglehart & Welzel. “World Values Survey,” www.Worlvaluesurvey.org.
5
​William Roberts Clark, Matt Golder, Sona Nadenichek Golder, “Elections and Electoral Systems,” ​Principles of
Comparative Politics​, 2nd ed. (CQ Press, 2013), pp 543.
6
​William Roberts Clark, Matt Golder, Sona Nadenichek Golder, “Social Cleavages and Party Systems,” ​Principles
of Comparative Politics​, 2nd ed. (CQ Press, 2013), pp 653.

3. Proportional representation systems, like that of Denmark, more accurately represent
voter preferences because they are based on a quota or divisor system. This is known as
Durverger’s hypothesis. This is the reason Danish students have the ability to attend college for 7
free; the Danish voters’ electoral system more accurately translates their preferences to the
government.
According to the Meltzer­Richard model of median voter preference, voters with more
income than the average income earner would be anxious to lower taxes and subsidies because
they are a net contributor. This means they pay more into the system and get back less. When 8
the average voter makes more than the average earner, such as the case with the United States,
the average earner is underrepresented and policies are catered to the high income earners who
favor lowering taxes. Lower taxes means less capital to spend on public goods, and this shapes
the way the citizens of a society value certain public goods. If the average voter earns more than
the average earner, they would not vote to raise taxes because they do not want to spend more on
public goods ­ they can privately buy the goods themselves without paying more to the
government. In Denmark, education is valued as a public good and taxes are necessarily higher. 9
article This is because the average voter makes as much as the average earner and so their values
of certain public goods are the same. As stated earlier, in the United States the average voter
makes more than the average earner, so their value systems differ. Higher earners voting will not
raise taxes, and therefor not support certain public goods like universal free education.
Why would the average earner not be the average voter?
SMDP systems discourage voters because they reward large parties and punish smaller
ones as explained by Durverger’s law. PR systems, however, encourage smaller parties because
they have the opportunity for representation no matter what their size is. Political scientists
Iverson and Soskice agree with Durverger’s hypothesis on PR systems. They say left­wing
parties, those which favor welfare policies, are more likely to occur in PR systems because
left­wing parties are often more fractured. So, they can still be small and maintain original values
and support while being capable of representation in the legislature. SMDP systems discourage
left­wing parties, and so they often discourage their welfare policies as well. In the United States,
voters who want free college education are discouraged from voting because they already know
the party they would prefer has a small chance at winning. This means the right­wing voters
(who are more wealthy, more unified on issues and already having a larger support base thanks
to strategic voting) are the only ones who vote because they’re the only ones who preferences are
expressed correctly. In Denmark, the PR system allows for left­wing parties to flourish, and the
7
Ibid.
8
Ibid, pp 772.
9
Rick Noak. ​Washington Post​.

4. compatibility of the average voter income and average earner income means the people’s
preferences for public goods are accurately represented.
To conclude, Danish students are being paid to go to college because their electoral
system accurately represents their preferences for public goods. The US is not able to accomplish
this because the SMDP system overrepresents high income earners by discouraging leftist parties
and leftist party supporters.
Bibliography
Iverson & Soskice,
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~iversen/PDFfiles/Iversen­Soskice2005.pdf
Rick Noak. “Why Danish Students are Paid to go to College,” ​The​ ​New York Times, ​Feb. 4,
2015​. ​https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/04/why­
danish­students­are­paid­to­go­to­college/.
Kenneth Shepsle. “Public Goods, Externalities, and the Commons,” W.W. Norton & Co., 2010.
pp 306­12.
Inglehart & Welzel. “World Values Survey,” www.Worlvaluesurvey.org.
​William Roberts Clark, Matt Golder, Sona Nadenichek Golder, ​Principles of Comparative
Politics​, 2nd ed. (CQ Press, 2013).