Advertisement

Composition independence in compound games: a characterization of the Banzhaf power index and the Banzhaf value

  • Ori HaimankoEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

We introduce the axiom of composition independence for power indices and value maps. In the context of compound (two-tier) voting, the axiom requires the power attributed to a voter to be independent of the second-tier voting games played in all constituencies other than that of the voter. We show that the Banzhaf power index is uniquely characterized by the combination of composition independence, four semivalue axioms (transfer, positivity, symmetry, and dummy), and a mild efficiency-related requirement. A similar characterization is obtained as a corollary for the Banzhaf value on the space of all finite games (with transfer replaced by additivity).

Keywords

Simple games Compound games Banzhaf power index Banzhaf value Composition property Semivalues Transfer Symmetry Positivity Dummy 

JEL Classification

C71 D72 

Notes

References

  1. Albizuri JM, Ruiz L (2001) A new axiomatization of the Banzhaf semivalue. Spanish Econ Rev 3:97–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Banzhaf JF (1965) Weighted voting doesn’t work: a mathematical analysis. Rutgers Law Rev 19:317–343Google Scholar
  3. Banzhaf JF (1966) Multi-member electoral districts—do they violate the “one man, one vote” principle. Yale Law J 75:1309–1338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banzhaf JF (1968) One man, 3.312 votes: a mathematical analysis of the electoral college. Vilanova Law Rev 13:304–332Google Scholar
  5. Casajus A (2012) Amalgamating players, symmetry, and the Banzhaf value. Int J Game Theory 41:497–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coleman JS (1971) Control of collectives and the power of a collectivity to act. In: Lieberman Bernhardt (ed) Social choice. Gordon and Breach, New York, pp 192–225Google Scholar
  7. Dubey P (1975) On the Uniqueness of the Shapley Value. Int J Game Theory 4:131–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dubey P, Neyman A, Weber RJ (1981) Value Theory Without Efficiency. Math Oper Res 6:122–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dubey P, Einy E, Haimanko O (2005) Compound voting and the Banzhaf index. Games Econ Behav 51:20–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dubey P, Shapley LS (1979) Mathematical properties of the Banzhaf power index. Math Oper Res 4:99–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Einy E (1987) Semivalues of simple games. Math Oper Res 12:185–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Felsenthal DS, Machover M (1998) The measurement of voting power: theory and practice, problems and paradoxes. Edward Elgar Publishers, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haimanko O (2017) Composition independence in compound games: a characterization of the Banzhaf power index and the Banzhaf value. DP # 1713 of the Monaster Center for Economic Research. http://in.bgu.ac.il/en/humsos/Econ/WorkingPapers/1713.pdf
  14. Haimanko O (2018) The axiom of equivalence to individual power and the Banzhaf index. Games Econ Behav 108:391–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Laruelle A, Valenciano F (2001) Shapley–Shubik and Banzhaf indices revisited. Math Oper Res 26:89–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lehrer E (1988) Axiomatization of the Banzhaf value. Int J Game Theory 17:89–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Malawski M (2002) Equal treatment, symmetry and Banzhaf value axiomatizations. Int J Game Theory 31:47–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Matsui T, Matsui Y (2000) A survey of algorithms for calculating power indices of weighted majority games. J Oper Res Soc Jpn 43:71–86Google Scholar
  19. Owen G (1964) The tensor composition of nonnegative games. In: Tucker AW (ed) Annals of Mathematics 52. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 307–326Google Scholar
  20. Owen G (1975) Multilinear extensions and the Banzhaf value. Naval Res Log Quart 1975:741–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Owen G (1978) Characterization of the Banzhaf–Coleman index. SIAM J Appl Math 35:315–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Owen G (1982) Game theory, 2nd edn. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Penrose LS (1946) The elementary statistics of majority voting. J R Stat Soc 109:53–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Roth AE (1988) The shapley value: essays in honor of Lloyd S. Shapley. In: Roth Alvin E (ed) The expected utility of playing a game. Chapter 4. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 51–70Google Scholar
  25. Shapley LS (1953) A value for \(n\)-person Games. In: Kuhn HW, Tucker AW (eds) Contributions to the theory of games II (Annals of Mathematical Studies 28). Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 307–317Google Scholar
  26. Shapley LS (1964) Solutions of compound simple games. In: Tucker AW (ed) Annals of Mathematics 52. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 267–306Google Scholar
  27. Shapley LS, Shubik M (1954) A method for evaluating the distribution of power in a committee system. Am Polit Sci Rev 48:787–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsBen-Gurion University of the NegevBeer ShevaIsrael

Personalised recommendations