IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eecrev/v132y2021ics0014292120302646.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Influence in weighted committees

Author

Listed:
  • Kurz, Sascha
  • Mayer, Alexander
  • Napel, Stefan

Abstract

Committee decisions on more than two alternatives much depend on the adopted aggregation rule, and so does the distribution of power among committee members. We quantify how different voting methods such as pairwise majority votes, plurality voting with or without a runoff, or Borda rule map asymmetric numbers of seats, shares, voting weights, etc. to influence on collective outcomes when individual preferences vary. Generalizations of the Penrose-Banzhaf and Shapley-Shubik power indices are proposed and applied to elections of the IMF Managing Director. Previous analysis of a priori power in binary voting is thus extended to universal social choice rules.

Suggested Citation

  • Kurz, Sascha & Mayer, Alexander & Napel, Stefan, 2021. "Influence in weighted committees," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eecrev:v:132:y:2021:i:c:s0014292120302646
    DOI: 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2020.103634
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292120302646
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2020.103634?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Laruelle,Annick & Valenciano,Federico, 2011. "Voting and Collective Decision-Making," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521182638, September.
    2. Alexander Tabarrok & Lee Spector, 1999. "Would the Borda Count Have Avoided the Civil War?," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 11(2), pages 261-288, April.
    3. Josep Freixas, 2005. "Banzhaf Measures for Games with Several Levels of Approval in the Input and Output," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 137(1), pages 45-66, July.
    4. Jean-François Laslier, 2012. "And the Loser Is… Plurality Voting," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Dan S. Felsenthal & Moshé Machover (ed.), Electoral Systems, chapter 0, pages 327-351, Springer.
    5. Shmuel Nitzan, 1985. "The vulnerability of point-voting schemes to preference variation and strategic manipulation," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 349-370, January.
    6. J. Alonso-Meijide & C. Bowles, 2005. "Generating Functions for Coalitional Power Indices: An Application to the IMF," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 137(1), pages 21-44, July.
    7. K. Ortmann, 1998. "Conservation of energy in value theory," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 47(3), pages 423-449, October.
    8. Dennis Leech, 2003. "Computing Power Indices for Large Voting Games," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(6), pages 831-837, June.
    9. Dan S. Felsenthal & Moshé Machover, 1998. "The Measurement of Voting Power," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1489.
    10. Pradeep Dubey & Lloyd S. Shapley, 1979. "Mathematical Properties of the Banzhaf Power Index," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 4(2), pages 99-131, May.
    11. Kurz, Sascha & Mayer, Alexander & Napel, Stefan, 2020. "Weighted committee games," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 282(3), pages 972-979.
    12. Stefan Napel & Mika Widgren, 2004. "Power Measurement as Sensitivity Analysis," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 16(4), pages 517-538, October.
    13. Laurent Bouton, 2013. "A Theory of Strategic Voting in Runoff Elections," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(4), pages 1248-1288, June.
    14. Shapley, L. S. & Shubik, Martin, 1954. "A Method for Evaluating the Distribution of Power in a Committee System," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 48(3), pages 787-792, September.
    15. Freixas, Josep & Zwicker, William S., 2009. "Anonymous yes-no voting with abstention and multiple levels of approval," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 428-444, November.
    16. Tchantcho, Bertrand & Lambo, Lawrence Diffo & Pongou, Roland & Engoulou, Bertrand Mbama, 2008. "Voters' power in voting games with abstention: Influence relation and ordinal equivalence of power theories," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 335-350, September.
    17. R. Amer & F. Carreras & A. Magaña, 1998. "Extension of values to games withmultiple alternatives," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 84(0), pages 63-78, December.
    18. C. H. Ueng & Vincent C. H. Chua & H. C. Huang, 2002. "A method for evaluating the behavior of power indices in weighted plurality games," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 19(3), pages 665-680.
    19. David A. Smith, 1999. "Manipulability measures of common social choice functions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 16(4), pages 639-661.
    20. Parker, Cameron, 2012. "The influence relation for ternary voting games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 867-881.
    21. Annick Laruelle & Federico Valenciano, 2012. "Quaternary dichotomous voting rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 38(3), pages 431-454, March.
    22. Dragan, Irinel, 1996. "New mathematical properties of the Banzhaf value," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 451-463, December.
    23. Sven Berg, 1985. "Paradox of voting under an urn model: The effect of homogeneity," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 377-387, January.
    24. Hsiao Chih-Ru & Raghavan T. E. S., 1993. "Shapley Value for Multichoice Cooperative Games, I," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 240-256, April.
    25. Josep Freixas & William S. Zwicker, 2003. "Weighted voting, abstention, and multiple levels of approval," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 21(3), pages 399-431, December.
    26. Myerson, Roger B., 1999. "Theoretical comparisons of electoral systems," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(4-6), pages 671-697, April.
    27. Edith Elkind & Piotr Faliszewski & Piotr Skowron & Arkadii Slinko, 2017. "Properties of multiwinner voting rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(3), pages 599-632, March.
    28. Gibbard, Allan, 1973. "Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(4), pages 587-601, July.
    29. Bolger, E M, 1986. "Power Indices for Multicandidate Voting Games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 15(3), pages 175-186.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alexander Mayer & Stefan Napel, 2021. "Weighted Scoring Committees," Games, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-17, December.
    2. Kirsch, Werner & Toth, Gabor, 2022. "Collective bias models in two-tier voting systems and the democracy deficit," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 118-137.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kurz, Sascha & Mayer, Alexander & Napel, Stefan, 2020. "Weighted committee games," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 282(3), pages 972-979.
    2. Courtin, Sébastien & Nganmeni, Zéphirin & Tchantcho, Bertrand, 2017. "Dichotomous multi-type games with a coalition structure," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 9-17.
    3. Pongou, Roland & Tchantcho, Bertrand & Tedjeugang, Narcisse, 2014. "Power theories for multi-choice organizations and political rules: Rank-order equivalence," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 42-49.
    4. René van den Brink & Agnieszka Rusinowska & Frank Steffen, 2009. "Measuring Power and Satisfaction in Societies with Opinion Leaders: Dictator and Opinion Leader Properties," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 09-052/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    5. Sébastien Courtin & Zéphirin Nganmeni & Bertrand Tchantcho, 2017. "Dichotomous multi-type games with a coalition structure," Post-Print halshs-01545772, HAL.
    6. Guemmegne, Juliette T. & Pongou, Roland, 2014. "A policy-based rationalization of collective rules: Dimensionality, specialized houses, and decentralized authority," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 182-193.
    7. Sébastien Courtin & Zéphirin Nganmeni & Bertrand Tchantcho, 2016. "The Shapley–Shubik power index for dichotomous multi-type games," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 81(3), pages 413-426, September.
    8. René Brink & Agnieszka Rusinowska & Frank Steffen, 2013. "Measuring power and satisfaction in societies with opinion leaders: an axiomatization," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 41(3), pages 671-683, September.
    9. Michel Grabisch & Agnieszka Rusinowska, 2010. "A model of influence with an ordered set of possible actions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(4), pages 635-656, October.
    10. Luisa Monroy & Francisco Fernández, 2014. "Banzhaf index for multiple voting systems. An application to the European Union," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 215(1), pages 215-230, April.
    11. Friedman, Jane & Parker, Cameron, 2018. "The conditional Shapley–Shubik measure for ternary voting games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 379-390.
    12. Josep Freixas & Montserrat Pons, 2022. "A critical analysis on the notion of power," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 318(2), pages 911-933, November.
    13. Freixas, Josep, 2012. "Probabilistic power indices for voting rules with abstention," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 89-99.
    14. Sascha Kurz, 2016. "The inverse problem for power distributions in committees," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(1), pages 65-88, June.
    15. Josep Freixas & Montserrat Pons, 2021. "An Appropriate Way to Extend the Banzhaf Index for Multiple Levels of Approval," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 447-462, April.
    16. Josep Freixas & Roberto Lucchetti, 2016. "Power in voting rules with abstention: an axiomatization of a two components power index," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 244(2), pages 455-474, September.
    17. Sanjay Bhattacherjee & Palash Sarkar, 2021. "Weighted voting procedure having a unique blocker," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 50(1), pages 279-295, March.
    18. Freixas, Josep & Tchantcho, Bertrand & Tedjeugang, Narcisse, 2014. "Achievable hierarchies in voting games with abstention," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 236(1), pages 254-260.
    19. László Á. Kóczy, 2018. "Partition Function Form Games," Theory and Decision Library C, Springer, number 978-3-319-69841-0, September.
    20. Sascha Kurz, 2014. "Measuring Voting Power in Convex Policy Spaces," Economies, MDPI, vol. 2(1), pages 1-33, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:eecrev:v:132:y:2021:i:c:s0014292120302646. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eer .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.