IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-03907378.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Italian referendum: what can we get from game theory?

Author

Listed:
  • Michela Chessa

    (GREDEG - Groupe de Recherche en Droit, Economie et Gestion - UNS - Université Nice Sophia Antipolis (1965 - 2019) - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - UniCA - Université Côte d'Azur)

  • Vito Fragnelli

Abstract

In Italy, the referendum represents the main form of direct democracy. At the national level, there exist 2 main forms of referendum: an abrogative referendum, in which the electorate is called to vote on whether they wish to abolish an existing law, and a constitutional referendum, which can be requested in some cases when a new constitutional law is approved by the Parliament. In the first case, the referendum has to meet a certain turnout requirement in order to be valid, namely, a participation quorum threshold has to be reached. The rationale for such a requirement is that, to change the status quo, a large proportion of citizens should care about the issue at stake and take part in the decision. In our work, we provide a game theoretic analysis of a voting rule with a participation quorum threshold. In particular, we focus on a binary dichotomous voting rule, in which the choices are vote “yes” and vote “no”, on a 3-option dichotomous voting rule, in which there is the additional choice to “stay at home”, and on a quaternary dichotomous voting rule, in which it is also possible to “abstain”. The possible outcomes are two, namely “approval” and “rejection”. We provide a graphical representation of these aforementioned voting rules, which allows for an easier analysis of these well-known voting scenarios, in particular focusing on the case of the Italian referendum. We analyze how the decisiveness (as a measure of agility), the blocking power (as a measure of inertia) of such voting situations, both at a collective and at an individual level, and the configurations in which a voter can become a swing voter are strongly impacted by the quorum threshold.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Michela Chessa & Vito Fragnelli, 2022. "The Italian referendum: what can we get from game theory?," Post-Print hal-03907378, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-03907378
    DOI: 10.1007/s10479-022-04927-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. François Maniquet & Massimo Morelli, 2015. "Approval quorums dominate participation quorums," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(1), pages 1-27, June.
    2. repec:wut:journl:v:3-4:y:2011:id:1012 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. 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.
    5. Kurz, Sascha & Mayer, Alexander & Napel, Stefan, 2020. "Weighted committee games," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 282(3), pages 972-979.
    6. David P. Myatt, 2007. "On the Theory of Strategic Voting -super-1," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 74(1), pages 255-281.
    7. Freixas, Josep, 2012. "Probabilistic power indices for voting rules with abstention," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 89-99.
    8. 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.
    9. Carreras, Francesc, 2005. "A decisiveness index for simple games," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 163(2), pages 370-387, June.
    10. Francesc Carreras, 2009. "Protectionism and blocking power indices," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 17(1), pages 70-84, July.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Chessa Michela & Vito Fragnelli, 2011. "Quantitative evaluation of veto power," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 21(3-4), pages 5-19.
    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. Mahajan, Aseem & Pongou, Roland & Tondji, Jean-Baptiste, 2023. "Supermajority politics: Equilibrium range, policy diversity, utilitarian welfare, and political compromise," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(2), pages 963-974.

    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, 2021. "Influence in weighted committees," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. M. Musegaas & P. E. M. Borm & M. Quant, 2018. "Three-valued simple games," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 85(2), pages 201-224, August.
    5. Matthew Gould & Matthew D. Rablen, 2017. "Reform of the United Nations Security Council: equity and efficiency," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 173(1), pages 145-168, October.
    6. Siani, Joseph & Tedjeugang, Narcisse & Tchantcho, Bertrand, 2023. "Influence relation in two-output multichoice voting games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 879-895.
    7. Sascha Kurz, 2014. "Measuring Voting Power in Convex Policy Spaces," Economies, MDPI, vol. 2(1), pages 1-33, March.
    8. 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.
    9. Josep Freixas, 2020. "The Banzhaf Value for Cooperative and Simple Multichoice Games," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 61-74, February.
    10. 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.
    11. Matthew Gould & Matthew D. Rablen, 2013. "Equitable Representation in the Councils of the United Nations: Theory and Application," CEDI Discussion Paper Series 13-07, Centre for Economic Development and Institutions(CEDI), Brunel University.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. repec:wut:journl:v:3-4:y:2011:id:1012 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Kong, Qianqian & Peters, Hans, 2023. "Power indices for networks, with applications to matching markets," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 306(1), pages 448-456.
    16. 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.
    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. Giulia Bernardi, 2018. "A New Axiomatization of the Banzhaf Index for Games with Abstention," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 165-177, February.
    19. 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.
    20. Bertrand Mbama Engoulou & Pierre Wambo & Lawrence Diffo Lambo, 2023. "A Characterization of the Totally Critical Raw Banzhaf Power Index on Dichotomous Voting Games with Several Levels of Approval in Input," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 871-888, August.
    21. Joseph Armel Momo Kenfack & Bertrand Tchantcho & Bill Proces Tsague, 2019. "On the ordinal equivalence of the Jonhston, Banzhaf and Shapley–Shubik power indices for voting games with abstention," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 48(2), pages 647-671, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:hal:journl:hal-03907378. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.