IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/annopr/v215y2014i1p25-3710.1007-s10479-013-1325-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Power distribution in the Weimar Reichstag in 1919–1933

Author

Listed:
  • Fuad Aleskerov
  • Manfred Holler
  • Rita Kamalova

Abstract

We present an analysis of the distribution of voting power in the Reichstag of the Weimar Republic based on the outcomes of the nine general elections in the period 1919–1933. The paper contains a brief description of the political and electoral system of the Weimar Republic and a characterization of the main political actors and their political views. The power distributions are evaluated by means of the Banzhaf index and two new indices which take into account the parties’ preferences to coalesce. A model is constructed to evaluate the parties’ preferences with reference to the closeness of the ideological positions in a one-dimensional political space. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Suggested Citation

  • Fuad Aleskerov & Manfred Holler & Rita Kamalova, 2014. "Power distribution in the Weimar Reichstag in 1919–1933," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 215(1), pages 25-37, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:annopr:v:215:y:2014:i:1:p:25-37:10.1007/s10479-013-1325-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s10479-013-1325-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10479-013-1325-4
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10479-013-1325-4?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. Manfred J. Holler & Stefan Napel, 2004. "Monotonicity of power and power measures," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 56(2_2), pages 93-111, February.
    2. Fuad Aleskerov, 2006. "Power Indices Taking into Account Agents’ Preferences," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Bruno Simeone & Friedrich Pukelsheim (ed.), Mathematics and Democracy, pages 1-18, Springer.
    3. Matthew Braham & Manfred J. Holler, 2005. "The Impossibility of a Preference-Based Power Index," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 17(1), pages 137-157, January.
    4. Stefan Napel & Mika Widgrén, 2005. "The Possibility of a Preference-Based Power Index," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 17(3), pages 377-387, July.
    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. Kamionko, V. & Marakulin, V., 2020. "Shapley's value and its axiomatization in games with prior probabilities of coalition formation," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 46(2), pages 12-29.
    2. Matteo Migheli, 2016. "Measuring Representativeness in Different Electoral Systems, Using Italian and Dutch Data," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 723-748, July.
    3. Guillermo Owen & Francesc Carreras, 2022. "Spatial games and endogenous coalition formation," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 318(2), pages 1095-1115, November.

    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. Madeleine O. Hosli & Běla Plechanovová & Serguei Kaniovski, 2018. "Vote Probabilities, Thresholds and Actor Preferences: Decision Capacity and the Council of the European Union," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 31-52, June.
    2. Agnieszka Rusinowska, 2010. "The Hoede–Bakker Index Modified to the Shapley–Shubik and Holler–Packel Indices," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 19(6), pages 543-569, November.
    3. Hans Peters & José M. Zarzuelo, 2017. "An axiomatic characterization of the Owen–Shapley spatial power index," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 46(2), pages 525-545, May.
    4. Fuad Aleskerov, 2008. "Power distribution in the electoral body with an application to the Russian Parliament," ICER Working Papers - Applied Mathematics Series 11-2008, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    5. Tom Blockmans & Marie-Anne Guerry, 2015. "Probabilistic Spatial Power Indexes: The Impact of Issue Saliences and Distance Selection," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 675-697, July.
    6. Serguei Kaniovski, 2008. "The exact bias of the Banzhaf measure of power when votes are neither equiprobable nor independent," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(2), pages 281-300, August.
    7. Julien Reynaud & Fabien Lange & Łukasz Gątarek & Christian Thimann, 2011. "Proximity in Coalition Building," Central European Journal of Economic Modelling and Econometrics, Central European Journal of Economic Modelling and Econometrics, vol. 3(3), pages 111-132, September.
    8. F. Aleskerov & N. Meshcheryakova & S. Shvydun, 2016. "Centrality measures in networks based on nodes attributes, long-range interactions and group influence," Papers 1610.05892, arXiv.org.
    9. Stefan Napel & Mika Widgrén, 2006. "The Inter-Institutional Distribution of Power in EU Codecision," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 27(1), pages 129-154, August.
    10. Stefano Benati & Giuseppe Vittucci Marzetti, 2021. "Voting power on a graph connected political space with an application to decision-making in the Council of the European Union," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 57(4), pages 733-761, November.
    11. Katrin Zulauf & Ralf Wagner, 2023. "Countering Negotiation Power Asymmetries by Using the Adjusted Winner Algorithm," SN Operations Research Forum, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 1-20, March.
    12. Aleskerov, F. & Badgaeva, D. & Pislyakov, V. & Sterligov, I. & Shvydun, S., 2016. "An Importance of Russian and International Economic Journals: a Network Approach," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 30(2), pages 193-205.
    13. Geller, Chris R. & Mustard, Jamie & Shahwan, Ranya, 2013. "Focused power: Experiments, the Shapley-Shubik power index, and focal points," Economics Discussion Papers 2013-42, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    14. Napel, Stefan & Nohn, Andreas & Alonso-Meijide, José Maria, 2012. "Monotonicity of power in weighted voting games with restricted communication," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 247-257.
    15. Stefano Benati & Giuseppe Vittucci Marzetti, 2013. "Probabilistic spatial power indexes," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(2), pages 391-410, February.
    16. Freixas, Josep & Kurz, Sascha, 2016. "The cost of getting local monotonicity," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 251(2), pages 600-612.
    17. Manfred Holler & Hannu Nurmi, 2010. "Measurement of power, probabilities, and alternative models of man," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 44(5), pages 833-847, August.
    18. J. Alonso-Meijide & C. Bowles & M. Holler & S. Napel, 2009. "Monotonicity of power in games with a priori unions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 66(1), pages 17-37, January.
    19. Fuad Aleskerov & Natalia Meshcheryakova & Alisa Nikitina & Sergey Shvydun, 2016. "Key Borrowers Detection by Long-Range Interactions," HSE Working papers WP BRP 56/FE/2016, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    20. Hannu Nurmi, 2010. "Voting Weights or Agenda Control: Which One Really Matters?," Czech Economic Review, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, vol. 4(1), pages 005-017, 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:spr:annopr:v:215:y:2014:i:1:p:25-37:10.1007/s10479-013-1325-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.