Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen
A voting game can be looked at from the angle of the individual players, or from that of the designer of the voting game. In the former perspective, it is natural to ask what the ‘value’ of the game to each of the players is. As stressed in Sects. 1.2 and 1.3, ‘value’ can refer to a player’s ability to change the outcome of a voting game, or to the payoffs he may reasonably expect, but in both cases the game enters the analysis as input. From the designer’s perspective, by contrast, the input is a desired value for the individual players, and the problem is to construct a voting game which induces it. This idea, that human interaction can be subjected to deliberate design, possibly most warrants the label ‘political’. Assessing the rules of existing political bodies and devising new rules is the foremost area of application for power indices (see Sect. 1.2.1).
This chapter is devoted to one instance of such an institutional design problem: finding a weighted voting rule which implements the principle of ‘one person, one vote’ in a two-tiered government system. Weighted voting is used in many important political bodies such as the EU Council of Ministers, the US Electoral College, and the International Monetary Fund, as well as in some cartels, such as the International Coffee Council. The choice of weights is often a source of considerable dissent in these bodies. With respect to the European Union, the Single European Act of 1986 comprised provisions that weighted voting under a qualified majority rule should be applied for most decisions in the Council of Ministers concerning the Single Market. Like the earlier Treaties of Maastricht and Amsterdam, the Treaty of Nice, which was settled by the governments of the EU member states in December 2000, extended the use of qualified majority rule to new policy domains. Here, as well as at earlier occasions, e.g., the 1995 enlargement to Austria, Finland, and Sweden, the voting weights and quota proved to be a bone of contention. The controversy regained its momentum at the Council of the European Union (the ‘EU Summit’) in June 2007 due to Poland’s lobbying for a square-root allocation of weights in the Council of Ministers.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Algaba, E., Bilbao, J. M., Fernández García, J. R., & López, J. J. (2003). Computing power indices in weighted multiple majority games. Mathematical Social Sciences, 46(1), 63–80. CrossRef
Arnold, B. C., Balakrishnan, N., & Nagaraja, H. N. (1992). A first course in order statistics. New York: Wiley.
Balinski, M. L., & Young, H. P. (2001). Fair representation – meeting the ideal of one man, one vote (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Banks, J. S., & Duggan, J. (2000). A bargaining model of social choice. American Political Science Review, 94(1), 73–88. CrossRef
Banzhaf, J. F. (1965). Weighted voting doesn’t work: A mathematical analysis. Rutgers Law Review, 19(2), 317–343.
Banzhaf, J. F. (1968). One man, 3.312 votes: A mathematical analysis of the electoral college. Villanova Law Review, 13(2), 304–332.
Beisbart, C., & Bovens, L. (2007). Welfarist evaluations of decision rules for boards of representatives. Social Choice and Welfare, 29(4), 581–608. CrossRef
Beisbart, C., Bovens, L., & Hartmann, S. (2005). A utilitarian assessment of alternative decision rules in the council of ministers. European Union Politics, 6(4), 395–419. CrossRef
Beisbart, C., & Hartmann, S. (2006). Welfarism and the assessment of social decision rules. In U. Endriss & J. Lang (Eds.), Computational social choice 2006 (pp. 35–48). Amsterdam.
Beitz, C. R. (1989). Political equality – an essay in democratic theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bilbao, J. M., Bobay, F., Kirsch, W., Machover, M., McLean, I., Plechanovová, B., et al. (2004). Letter to the governments of the EU member states. URL (consulted last in April 2006): http://www.esi2.us.es/∼mbilbao/pdffiles/letter.pdf.
Brams, S. J. (1978). The presidential election game. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Buchanan, A. (2002). Political legitimacy and democracy. Ethics, 112(4), 689–719. CrossRef
Chamberlain, G., & Rothschild, M. (1981). A note on the probability of casting a decisive vote. Journal of Economic Theory, 25(1), 152–162. CrossRef
Chang, P.-L., Chua, V. C., & Machover, M. (2006). L S Penrose’s limit theorem: Tests by simulation. Mathematical Social Sciences, 51(1), 90–106. CrossRef
Christiano, T. (1996). The rule of the many: Fundamental issues in democratic theory. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Christiano, T. (2006). Democracy’s authority: Reply to Wall. Journal of Political Philosophy, 14(1), 101–110. CrossRef
Dahl, R. A. (1956). A preface to democratic theory. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
Epstein, D., & O’Halloran, S. (1999). Measuring the electoral and policy impact of majority-minority voting districts. American Journal of Political Science, 43(2), 367–395. CrossRef
Felsenthal, D., & Machover, M. (1998). The measurement of voting power – theory and practice, problems and paradoxes. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Felsenthal, D., & Machover, M. (2001). The treaty of nice and qualified majority voting. Social Choice and Welfare, 18(3), 431–464. CrossRef
Felsenthal, D., & Machover, M. (2004). Analysis of QM rules in the draft constitution for Europe proposed by the European convention, 2003. Social Choice and Welfare, 23(1), 1–20. CrossRef
Gabaix, X. (1999). Zipf’s law for cities: An explanation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 739–767. CrossRef
Gelman, A., Katz, J. N., & Bafumi, J. (2004). Standard voting power indexes do not work: An empirical analysis. British Journal of Political Science, 34(4), 657–674. CrossRef
Gelman, A., Katz, J. N., & Tuerlinckx, F. (2002). The mathematics and statistics of voting power. Statistical Science, 17(4), 420–435. CrossRef
Gerber, E. R., & Lewis, J. B. (2004). Beyond the median: Voter preferences, district heterogeneity, and political representation. Journal of Political Economy, 112(6), 1364–1383. CrossRef
Good, I. J., & Mayer, L. S. (1975). Estimating the efficacy of a vote. Behavioral Science, 20(1), 25–33. CrossRef
Laruelle, A., Martínez, R., & Valenciano, F. (2006). Success versus decisiveness: Conceptual discussion and case study. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 18(2), 185–205. CrossRef
Leech, D. (2002). Designing the voting system for the council of the European union. Public Choice, 113(3–4), 437–464. CrossRef
Lindner, I., & Machover, M. (2004). L. S. Penrose’s limit theorem: Proof of some special cases. Mathematical Social Sciences, 47(1), 37–49.
Maaser, N., & Napel, S. (2007). Equal representation in two-tier voting systems. Social Choice and Welfare, 28(3), 401–420. CrossRef
Manin, B., Przeworski, A., & Stokes, S. C. (1999). Introduction. In B. Manin, A. Przeworski, & S. C. Stokes (Eds.), Democracy, accountability, and representation (pp. 1–26). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mann, I., & Shapley, L. S. (1960). Values of large games, IV: Evaluating the electoral college by Monte Carlo techniques. Memorandum RM-2651, The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica.
Mann, I., & Shapley, L. S. (1962). Values of large games, VI: Evaluating the electoral college exactly. Memorandum RM-3158-PR, The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica.
Metropolis, N., & Ulam, S. (1949). The Monte Carlo method. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 44(247), 335–341. CrossRef
Newman, N. (2000). The power of design. Nature, 405, 412–413. CrossRef
Penrose, L. S. (1946). The elementary statistics of majority voting. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 109(1), 53–57. CrossRef
Pitkin, H. F. (1967). The concept of representation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Rae, D. W. (1975). The limits of consensual decision. American Political Science Review, 69(4), 1270–1294. CrossRef
Reed, W. J. (2002). On the rank-size distribution for human settlements. Journal of Regional Science, 42(1), 1–17. CrossRef
Stratmann, T., & Baur, M. (2002). Plurality rule, proportional representation, and the German Bundestag: How incentives to pork-barrel differ across electoral systems. American Journal of Political Science, 46(3), 506–514. CrossRef
Taylor, A. D., & Zwicker, W. S. (1999). Simple games. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Wall, S. (2006). Democracy, authority and publicity. Journal of Political Philosophy, 14(1), 85–100. CrossRef
- Committees as Representative Institutions
Dr. Nicola F. Maaser
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg
- Chapter 2
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© BBL, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta, Neuer Inhalt/© hww, Best Practices zu agiler Qualität