Skip to main content
Log in

The exact bias of the Banzhaf measure of power when votes are neither equiprobable nor independent

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Social Choice and Welfare Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper discusses a numerical scheme for computing the Banzhaf swing probability when votes are neither equiprobable nor independent. Examples indicate a substantial bias in the Banzhaf measure of voting power if neither assumption is met. The analytical part derives the exact magnitude of the bias due to the common probability of an affirmative vote deviating from one half and due to common correlation in unweighted simple-majority games. The former bias is polynomial, the latter is linear. A modified square-root rule for two-tier voting systems that takes into account both the homogeneity and the size of constituencies is also provided.

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

  • Banzhaf JF (1965). Weighted voting does not work: a mathematical analysis. Rutgers Law Rev 19: 317–343

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbera S and Jackson MO (2006). On the weights of nations: assigning voting weights in a heterogeneous union. J Polit Econ 114: 317–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg S (1985). Paradox of voting under an urn-model: the effect of homogeneity. Pub Choice 47: 377–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg S (1993). Condorcet’s jury theorem, dependency among jurors. Social Choice and Welfare 10: 87–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boland PJ (1989). Majority systems and the Condorcet jury theorem. Statistician 38: 181–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braham M and Holler M (2005). The impossibility of a preference-based power index. J Theor Polit 17: 137–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braham M and Holler M (2005). Power and preferences again. A reply to Napel and Widgrén. J Theor Polit 17: 389–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chamberlain G and Rothschild M (1981). A note on the probability of casting a decisive vote. J Econ Theory 25: 152–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Everitt BS (1992). The analysis of contingency tables. Chapman & Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Felsenthal DS, Machover M (1998) The measurement of voting power: theory and practice, problems and paradoxes. Edward Elgar

  • Garrett G and Tsebelis G (2001). Even more reasons to resist the temptation of power indices in the European Union. J Theor Polit 13: 99–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelman A, Katz JN and Bafumi J (2004). Standard voting power indices don’t work: an empirical analysis. Br J Polit Sci 34: 657–674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelman A, Katz JN and Tuerlinckx F (2002). The mathematics and statistics of voting power. Stat Sci 17: 420–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Good I and Mayer L (1975). Estimating the efficacy of a vote. Behav Sci 20: 25–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grofman B (1981). Fair apportionment and the Banzhaf index. Am Math Mont 88: 1–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall AR (2005). Generalized method of moments. Advanced texts in econometrics. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaniovski YM and Pflug GC (2007). Risk assessment for credit portfolios: a coupled Markov chain model. J Bank Finance 31: 2303–2323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirman A, Widgrén M (1995) European economic decision-making policy: progress or paralysis? Econ Policy 10:423–460

    Google Scholar 

  • Leech D and Leech R (2006). Voting power and voting blocs. Pub Choice 127: 285–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maaser N and Napel S (2007). Equal representation in two-tier voting systems. Soc Choice Welf 28: 401–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merrill~III S and Grofman B (1999). A unified theory of voting: directional and proximity spatial models. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Napel S and Widgrén M (2004). Power measurement as sensitivity analysis: a unified approach. J Theor Polit 16: 517–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Napel S and Widgrén M (2005). The possibility of a preference-based power index. J Theor Polit 17: 377–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen G (1972). Multilinear extensions of games. Manage Sci 18: 64–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Page SE (2006). Path dependence. Q J Polit Sci 1: 87–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penrose LS (1946). The elementary statistics of majority voting. J R Stat Soc 109: 53–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapley LS and Shubik M (1954). A method of evaluating the distribution of power in a committee system. Am Polit Sci Rev 48: 787–792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steunenberg B, Schmidtchen D and Koboldt C (1999). Strategic power in the European Union: evaluating the distribution of power in policy games. J Theor Polit 11: 339–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Straffin PD (1977). Homogeneity, independence and power indices. Pub Choice 30: 107–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Straffin PD (1994). Power and stability in politics. In: Aumann, RJ and Hart, S (eds) Handbook of game theory, Vol 2, chap 32, pp. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsebelis G (1995). Decision making in political systems: veto players in presidentialism, parliamentarism, multicameralism and multipartyism. Br J Polit Sci 25: 289–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Widgrén M (1995). Probabilistic voting power in the EU Council: the cases of trade policy and social regulation. Scand J Econ 97: 345–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Serguei Kaniovski.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kaniovski, S. The exact bias of the Banzhaf measure of power when votes are neither equiprobable nor independent. Soc Choice Welfare 31, 281–300 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-007-0280-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-007-0280-x

Keywords

Navigation