IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/wpaper/halshs-00501840.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An experimental study on learning about voting powers

Author

Listed:
  • Gabriele Esposito

    (GREQAM - Groupement de Recherche en Économie Quantitative d'Aix-Marseille - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - AMU - Aix Marseille Université - ECM - École Centrale de Marseille - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Eric Guerci

    (GREQAM - Groupement de Recherche en Économie Quantitative d'Aix-Marseille - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - AMU - Aix Marseille Université - ECM - École Centrale de Marseille - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Nobuyuki Hanaki

    (GREQAM - Groupement de Recherche en Économie Quantitative d'Aix-Marseille - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - AMU - Aix Marseille Université - ECM - École Centrale de Marseille - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Economics Department - Université de Tsukuba = University of Tsukuba)

  • Xiaoyan Lu

    (GREQAM - Groupement de Recherche en Économie Quantitative d'Aix-Marseille - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - AMU - Aix Marseille Université - ECM - École Centrale de Marseille - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Naoki Watanabe

    (Economics Department - Université de Tsukuba = University of Tsukuba)

Abstract

We investigate experimentally whether subjects can learn, from their limited experiences, about relationships between the distribution of votes in a group and associated voting powers in weighted majority voting systems (WMV). Subjects are asked to play two-stage games repeatedly. In the second stage of the game, a group of four subjects bargains over how to divide fixed amount of resources among themselves through theWMV determined in the first stage. In the first stage, two out of four subjects in the group, independently and simultaneously, choose from two options that jointly determine the distribution of a given number of votes among four members. These two subjects face a 2 × 2 matrix that shows the distribution of votes, but not associated voting powers, among four members for each outcome. Therefore, to obtain higher rewards, subjects need to learn about the latter by actually playing the second stage. The matrix subjects face in the first stage changes during the experiment to test subjects' understanding of relationships between distribution of votes and voting power. The results of our experiments suggest that although (a) many subjects learn to choose, in the votes apportionment stage, the option associated with a higher voting power, (b) it is not easy for them to learn the underlying relationships between the two and correctly anticipate their voting powers when they face a new distribution of votes.

Suggested Citation

  • Gabriele Esposito & Eric Guerci & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Xiaoyan Lu & Naoki Watanabe, 2010. "An experimental study on learning about voting powers," Working Papers halshs-00501840, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:halshs-00501840
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00501840
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00501840/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. M. Maschler & B. Peleg & L. S. Shapley, 1979. "Geometric Properties of the Kernel, Nucleolus, and Related Solution Concepts," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 4(4), pages 303-338, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Stefan Ambec & Yann Kervinio, 2016. "Cooperative decision-making for the provision of a locally undesirable facility," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(1), pages 119-155, January.
    2. E. Calvo & E. Gutiérrez, 1996. "A prekernel characterization by means of stability properties," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 4(2), pages 257-267, December.
    3. H. Andrew Michener & Daniel J. Myers, 1998. "Probabilistic Coalition Structure Theories," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 42(6), pages 830-860, December.
    4. A. Kovalenkov & M. Holtz Wooders, 1999. "An explicit bound on e for nonemptiness of e-cores of games," THEMA Working Papers 99-37, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    5. Zaporozhets, Vera & García-Valiñas, María & Kurz, Sascha, 2016. "Key drivers of EU budget allocation: Does power matter?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 57-70.
    6. Francesc Llerena & Marina Nunez, 2011. "A geometric characterization of the nucleolus of the assignment game," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 31(4), pages 3275-3285.
    7. Bouchery, Yann & Hezarkhani, Behzad & Stauffer, Gautier, 2022. "Coalition formation and cost sharing for truck platooning," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 15-34.
    8. Tamas Solymosi & Balazs Sziklai, 2015. "Universal Characterization Sets for the Nucleolus in Balanced Games," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 1512, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    9. Stéphane Gonzalez & Aymeric Lardon, 2018. "Optimal deterrence of cooperation," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 47(1), pages 207-227, March.
    10. Lejano, Raul P. & Davos, Climis A., 2001. "Siting noxious facilities with victim compensation: : n-person games under transferable utility," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 109-124.
    11. Guillermo Owen & Ines Lindner & Scott Feld & Bernard Grofman & Leonard Ray, 2006. "A simple “market value” bargaining model for weighted voting games: characterization and limit theorems," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 35(1), pages 111-128, December.
    12. Panfei Sun & Dongshuang Hou & Hao Sun & Hui Zhang, 2017. "Process and optimization implementation of the $$\alpha $$ α -ENSC value," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 86(2), pages 293-308, October.
    13. Le Breton, Michel & Montero, Maria & Zaporozhets, Vera, 2012. "Voting power in the EU council of ministers and fair decision making in distributive politics," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 159-173.
    14. A. Kovalenkov & M. Holtz Wooders, 1999. "An explicit bound on e for nonemptiness of e-cores of games," THEMA Working Papers 99-37, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    15. Bonnisseau, Jean-Marc & Iehle, Vincent, 2007. "Payoff-dependent balancedness and cores," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 1-26, October.
    16. Meinhardt, Holger Ingmar, 2020. "On the Replication of the Pre-Kernel and Related Solutions," MPRA Paper 102676, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Samuel Ferey & Pierre Dehez, 2016. "Multiple Causation, Apportionment, and the Shapley Value," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 45(1), pages 143-171.
    18. Dehez, Pierre & Ferey, Samuel, 2013. "How to share joint liability: A cooperative game approach," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 44-50.
    19. Meinhardt, Holger Ingmar, 2021. "Disentangle the Florentine Families Network by the Pre-Kernel," MPRA Paper 106482, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Daphne Cornelisse & Thomas Rood & Mateusz Malinowski & Yoram Bachrach & Tal Kachman, 2022. "Neural Payoff Machines: Predicting Fair and Stable Payoff Allocations Among Team Members," Papers 2208.08798, arXiv.org.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    experiment; learning; voting power; bargaining;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:wpaper:halshs-00501840. 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.