Graduate studies at Western
Theory and Decision 44 (1):83-116 (1998)
|Abstract||If K is an index of relative voting power for simple voting games, the bicameral postulate requires that the distribution of K -power within a voting assembly, as measured by the ratios of the powers of the voters, be independent of whether the assembly is viewed as a separate legislature or as one chamber of a bicameral system, provided that there are no voters common to both chambers. We argue that a reasonable index â if it is to be used as a tool for analysing abstract, âuninhabitedâ decision rules â should satisfy this postulate. We show that, among known indices, only the Banzhaf measure does so. Moreover, the ShapleyâShubik, DeeganâPackel and Johnston indices sometimes witness a reversal under these circumstances, with voter x âless powerfulâ than y when measured in the simple voting game G1 , but âmore powerfulâ than y when G1 is âbicamerally joinedâ with a second chamber G2 . Thus these three indices violate a weaker, and correspondingly more compelling, form of the bicameral postulate. It is also shown that these indices are not always co-monotonic with the Banzhaf index and that as a result they infringe another intuitively plausible condition â the price monotonicity condition. We discuss implications of these findings, in light of recent work showing that only the ShapleyâShubik index, among known measures, satisfies another compelling principle known as the bloc postulate. We also propose a distinction between two separate aspects of voting power: power as share in a fixed purse (P-power) and power as influence (I-power)|
|Keywords||Banzhaf Deegan–Packel index of voting power Johnston paradoxes of voting power Penrose postulates for index of voting power Shapley value Shapley–Shubik simple voting game weighted voting game|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Dennis Leech & Robert Leech, Voting Power Implications of a Unified European Representation at the IMF.
Pao-Li Chang, Vincent C. H. Chua & Moshé Machover, L S Penrose's Limit Theorem: Tests by Simulation.
Lawrence Diffo Lambo & Joël Moulen (2002). Ordinal Equivalence of Power Notions in Voting Games. Theory and Decision 53 (4):313-325.
Dan S. Felsenthal & Mosh� Machover (1995). Postulates and Paradoxes of Relative Voting Power ? A Critical Re-Appraisal. Theory and Decision 38 (2):195-229.
Vincent C. H. Chua & Dan S. Felsenthal, Do Voting Power Considerations Explain the Formation of Political Coalitions? A Re-Evaluation.
Thomas Quint (2001). Measures of Powerlessness in Simple Games. Theory and Decision 50 (4):367-382.
Thomas Pogge (2009). Developing Morally Plausible Indices of Poverty and Gender Equity. Philosophical Topics 37 (2):199-221.
Fany Yuval (2002). Sophisticated Voting Under the Sequential Voting by Veto. Theory and Decision 53 (4):343-369.
Yann Allard-Tremblay (2012). The Epistemic Edge of Majority Voting Over Lottery Voting. Res Publica 18 (3):207-223.
Added to index2010-09-02
Total downloads2 ( #246,325 of 739,324 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?