Skip to main content
Log in

Randomized decision rules in voting games: a model for strict proportional power

  • Published:
Quality and Quantity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The concept of strict proportional power is introduced, as a means of formalizing a desire to avoid discrepancy between the seat distribution in a voting body and the actual voting power in that body, as measured by power indices in common use. Proportionality is obtained through use of a randomized decision rule (majority rule). Some technical problems which arise are discussed in terms of simplex geometry. Practical implications and problems in connection with randomized decision rules are indicated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Brams S.J., Game Theory and Politics, New York; Free Press, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brams S.J., and Affuso P., Power and Size: A New Paradox, Theory and Decision, 7, 1976, 29–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan J.M., and Tullock G., The Calculus of Consent: The Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman J.S., Control of Collectivities and the Power of a Collectivity to Act, Social Choice, B. Lieberman (ed.), New York: Gordon and Breach, 1971, 277–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtis R.B., Decision-Rules and Collective Values in Constitutional Choice, Probability Models of Collective Decision Making, ed. by R.G. Niemi and H.F. Weisberg, Columbus: Charles Merrill, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreyer J., and Schotter A., Power Relationship in the International Monetary Fund: The Consequences of Quota Changes, Review of Economics and Statistics, 62, 1980, 97–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubey P., and Shapley L.S., Mathematical Properties of the Banzhaf Power Index, Mathematics of Operations Research, 4, 1979, 99–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher D., and Schotter A., The Inevitability of the Paradox of Redistribution in the Allocation of Voting Weights, Public Choice, 33, 1978, 49–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey B.S., Eine spieltheoretische Analyse der Machtverteilung im Schweizerischen Bundesrat, Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Volkswirtschaft und Statistik, 104, 1968, 155–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gough J.W., The Social Contract, 2nd edn., Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1957.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grofman B., and Scarrow H., Iannuci and Its Aftermath: The Application of the Banzhaf Index to Weighted Voting in the State of New York, Applied Game Theory, ed. by S.J. Brams, A. Schotter, and G. Schwödiauer, Würzburg: Physica, 1979, 168–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holler M.J., Note on a Paradox, Jahrbucher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, 197, 1982a, 251–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holler M.J., An Introduction to the Analysis of Power, Voting, and Voting Power, Power, Voting, and Voting Power, M.J. Holler (ed.), Würzburg, Physica, 1982b, 15–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holler M.J., and Kellerman J., Power in the European Parliament: What Will Change? Quality and Quantity, 11, 1977, 189–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laakso M., and Taagepera R., Proportional Representation in Scandinavia: Implications for Finland. Scandinavian Political Studies, 1, 1978, 43–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laakso M., Thresholds for Proportional Representation: Reanalyzed and Extended, Munich Social Science Review, 1, 1979, 19–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart A., and Gibbard R.W., Thresholds and Payoffs in List Systems of Proportional Representation. European Journal of Political Research, 5, 1977, 219–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Packel E.W., and Deegan J.Jr., An Axiomatic Family of Power Indices for Simple n-Person Games, Public Choice, 35, 1980, 229–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rae D.W., Handby V.J. and Loosemore J., Thresholds of Representation and Thresholds of Exclusion: An Analytical Note on Electoral Systems, Comparative Political Studies, 3, 1971, 479–489.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rokkan S., Elections: Electoral Systems, International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, D.L. Sille (ed.) New York: Macmillan and Free Press, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapley L.S., Simple Games: An Outline of the Descriptive Theory. Behavioral Science, 7, 1962, 59–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapley L.S., and Shubik M., A Method for Evaluating the Distribution of Power in a Committee System, American Political Science Review, 48, 1954, 787–792.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stenlund H., and Lane J.-E., The Structure of Voting Power Indices, Quality and Quantity, 18, 1984, 367–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Neumann J., and Morgenstern O., Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2nd ed., 1947.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Berg, S., Holler, M.J. Randomized decision rules in voting games: a model for strict proportional power. Qual Quant 20, 419–429 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00123089

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00123089

Keywords

Navigation