Achievable Hierarchies In Voting Games
- 87 Downloads
- 16 Citations
Abstract
Previous work by Diffo Lambo and Moulen [Theory and Decision 53, 313–325 (2002)] and Felsenthal and Machover [The Measurement of Voting Power, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited (1998)], shows that all swap preserving measures of voting power are ordinally equivalent on any swap robust simple voting game. Swap preserving measures include the Banzhaf, the Shapley–Shubik and other commonly used measures of a priori voting power. In this paper, we completely characterize the achievable hierarchies for any such measure on a swap robust simple voting game. Each possible hierarchy can be induced by a weighted voting game and we provide a constructive proof of this result. In particular, the strict hierarchy is always achievable as long as there are at least five players.
Keywords
desirability relation ordinal equivalence power indices swap robust voting gamesPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- Banzhaf J. (1965), Weighted voting doesn’t work: a mathematical analysis. Rugers Law Review 58, 317–343Google Scholar
- Diffo Lambo L., Moulen J. (2002), Ordinal equivalence of power notions in voting games. Theory and Decision 53, 313–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Felsenthal, D.S. and Machover, M. (1998), The Measurement of Voting Power. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
- Shapley L.S., Shubik M. (1954), A method for evaluating the distribution of power in a committee system. American Political Science Review 48, 787–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Taylor A.D. (1995), Mathematics and Politics. Textbooks in Mathematical Sciences, Springer-VerlagGoogle Scholar
- Taylor A.D., Zwicker W.S. (1999), Simple Games, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Tolle J. (2003), Power distribution in four-player weighted voting systems. Mathematics Magazine 76, 33–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tomiyama Y. (1987), Simple game, voting representation and ordinal power equivalence. International Journal on Policy and Information 11, 67–75Google Scholar