×

Voting power: an information theory approach. (English) Zbl 1201.91049

Summary: In recent years, there has been increasing awareness of the importance of formal measures of voting power and of the relevance of such measures to real life political issues. Nevertheless, existing measures have been criticized, especially because of their dependence on the unrealistic assumption that different coalitions have equal probabilities. In this paper we show that the classical problem of measuring voting power can be naturally embedded in information theory. This perspective on voting power allows us to extend measures of voting power to cases in which there are dependencies among voters. In doing so, we distinguish between two different notions of a given voter’s power – “control” and “informativeness” – corresponding, respectively, to the average uncertainty regarding the outcome of a vote that remains when all others have voted and the average uncertainty that is eliminated when only the given voter has voted. This distinction settles a number of well-known paradoxes and enables the study of voting power on the basis of actual political behavior at all levels.

MSC:

91B12 Voting theory
91F10 History, political science
94A15 Information theory (general)
Full Text: DOI

References:

[1] Albert M (2003) The voting power approach: measurement without theory. Eur Union Polit 4(3): 351–366. doi: 10.1177/14651165030043005 · doi:10.1177/14651165030043005
[2] Albert M (2004) The voting power approach: unresolved ambiguities. Eur Union Polit 5(1): 139–146. doi: 10.1177/1465116504040449 · doi:10.1177/1465116504040449
[3] Aleskerov F, Blagoveschenski N, Satarov G, Sokolova A, Yakuba V (2004) Power distribution among groups and fractions in Russian parliament. LSE-CPNSS 3rd annual conference
[4] Axelrod R (1970) Conflict of interest: a theory of divergent goals with applications to politics. Markham, Chicago
[5] Bachrach P, Baratz M (1962) Two faces of power. Am Polit Sci Rev 56: 947–952. doi: 10.2307/1952796 · doi:10.2307/1952796
[6] Banzhaf JF III (1966) Multi-member electoral districts–do they violate the one man, one vote principle?. Yale Law J 75: 1309–1338. doi: 10.2307/795047 · doi:10.2307/795047
[7] Banzhaf JF III (1968) One man 3.312 votes: a mathematical analysis of the electoral college. Villanova Law Rev 13: 304–332
[8] Beisbart C (2007) Measuring influence for dependent voters: a generalisation of the Banzhaf measure. Fifth annual LSE workshop on voting power and procedures
[9] Berg S (1999) On voting power indices and a class of probability distributions: with applications to EU. Group Decis Negot 8(1): 17–31. doi: 10.1023/A:1008673712816 · doi:10.1023/A:1008673712816
[10] Bovens L, Beisbart C (2007) Measuring influence for dependent voters: a generalisation of the Banzhaf Measure. Fifth annual LSE workshop on voting power and procedures · Zbl 1180.91088
[11] Braham M, Holler M (2005) The impossibility of a preference-based power index. J Theor Polit 17: 137–157. doi: 10.1177/0951629805047801 · doi:10.1177/0951629805047801
[12] Brams SJ (1975) Game theory and politics. Free Press, New York
[13] Brams SJ, Sanver R (2006) Critical strategies under approval voting: who gets ruled in and ruled out. Elect Stud 25(2): 287–305. doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2005.05.007 · doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2005.05.007
[14] Coleman JS (1971) Control of collectivities and the power of a collectivity to act. In: Lieberman B, Social choice. Gordon and Breach, New York, pp 269–300
[15] De Swaan A (1973) Coalition theories and cabinet formations: a study of formal theories of coalition formation applied to nine European parliaments after 1948. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco
[16] Downs A (1957) An economic theory of democracy. Harper and Row, New York
[17] Feix MR, Lepelley D, Merlin VR, Rouet JL (2004) The probability of conflicts in a U.S. presidential type election. Econ Theory 23: 227–258. doi: 10.1007/s00199-003-0375-2 · Zbl 1128.91316 · doi:10.1007/s00199-003-0375-2
[18] Felsenthal DS, Machover M (1997) The weighted voting rule in the EU’s council of ministers, 1958–1995: intentions and outcomes. Elect Stud 16: 33–47. doi: 10.1016/S0261-3794(96)00055-8 · doi:10.1016/S0261-3794(96)00055-8
[19] Felsenthal DS, Machover M (1998) The measurement of voting power: theory and practice problems and paradoxes. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham · Zbl 0954.91019
[20] Felsenthal DS, Machover M (2005) Voting power measurement: a story of misreinvention. Soc Choice Welf 25: 485–506. doi: 10.1007/s00355-005-0015-9 · Zbl 1132.91306 · doi:10.1007/s00355-005-0015-9
[21] Felsenthal DS, Machover M (2003) The voting power approach: response to a philosophical reproach. Eur Union Polit 4(4):493–499, 513–517 doi: 10.1177/146511650344005
[22] Garrett G, Tsebelis G (1999) Why resist the temptation to apply power indices to the European union?. J Theor Polit 11(3): 291–308. doi: 10.1177/0951692899011003001 · doi:10.1177/0951692899011003001
[23] Garrett G, Tsebelis G (1999) More reasons to resist the temptation of power indices in the European union. J Theor Polit 11(3): 331–338. doi: 10.1177/0951692899011003004 · doi:10.1177/0951692899011003004
[24] Gelman A, Katz JN, Tuerlinckx F (2002) The mathematics and statistics of voting power. Stat Sci 17(4): 420–435. doi: 10.1214/ss/1049993201 · Zbl 1062.91019 · doi:10.1214/ss/1049993201
[25] Heard AD, Swartz TB (1999) Extended voting measures. Can J Stat 27: 177–186 · Zbl 0929.62118 · doi:10.2307/3315499
[26] Kaniovski S (2008) The exact bias of the Banzhaf measure of power when votes are neither equiprobable nor independent. Soc Choice Welf (in press) · Zbl 1163.91343
[27] Holler M, Widgrén M (1999) Why power indices for assissing European union decision-making?. J Theor Polit 11(3): 321–330. doi: 10.1177/0951692899011003003 · doi:10.1177/0951692899011003003
[28] Kilgour MD (1974) A Shapley value for cooperative games with quarreling. In: Rapoport A, Game theory as a theory of conflict resolution. Dordrecht, Holland, pp 193–206
[29] Lane J-E (2005) International organization analyzed with the power index method. LSE-CPNSS 4th annual workshop
[30] Lane JE, Berg S (1999) Relevance of voting power. J Theor Polit 11(3): 309–320 · doi:10.1177/0951692899011003002
[31] Laruelle A, Widgren M (1998) Is the allocation of voting power among EU states fair?. Public Choice 94(3–4): 317–339 · doi:10.1023/A:1004965310450
[32] Laruelle A, Valenciano F (2005) Assessing success and decisiveness in voting situations. Soc Choice Welf 24: 171–197. doi: 10.1007/s00355-003-0298-7 · Zbl 1100.91017 · doi:10.1007/s00355-003-0298-7
[33] Laruelle A, Valenciano F (2008) Voting and collective decision-making: bargaining and power. Cambridge University Press, London · Zbl 1173.91007
[34] Leech D (2002) Power indices as an aid to institutional design: the generalized apportionment problem. LSE-CPNSS 1st annual conference
[35] Leech D (2002) Voting power in the governance of the international monetary fund. Ann Oper Res 109: 375–397. doi: 10.1023/A:1016324824094 · Zbl 1005.91036 · doi:10.1023/A:1016324824094
[36] Leech D, Leech R (2006) Voting power and voting blocs. Public Choice 127(3): 285–303. doi: 10.1007/s11127-006-1914-8 · doi:10.1007/s11127-006-1914-8
[37] List C (2003) The voting power approach: a theory of measurement: a response to Max Albert. Eur Union Polit 4(4): 473–497. doi: 10.1177/146511650344005 · doi:10.1177/146511650344005
[38] Luce D, Rogow A (1956) A game-theoretic analysis of congressional power distributions for a stable two-party system. Behav Sci 1: 83–95 · doi:10.1002/bs.3830010202
[39] Machover M (2007) Discussion topic: voting power when voters’ independence is not assumed. LSE research online ( http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/2966 ), pp 1–4
[40] Maaser M, Napel S (2005) Equal representation in two-tier voting systems. LSE-CPNSS 4th annual conference · Zbl 1211.91101
[41] Napel S, Widgrén M (2005) The possibility of a preference-based power index. J Theor Polit 17: 377–387. doi: 10.1177/0951629805052886 · doi:10.1177/0951629805052886
[42] Nurmi H (1997) The representation of voter groups in the European parliament: a Penrose–Banzhaf index analysis. Elect Stud 16: 317–327. doi: 10.1016/S0261-3794(97)00027-9 · doi:10.1016/S0261-3794(97)00027-9
[43] Nurmi M, Meskanen T (1999) A priori power measures and the institutions of the European union. Eur J Polit Res 35: 161–179
[44] Penrose LS (1952) On the objective study of crowd behaviour. H.K. Lewis and Co., London
[45] Rablen M (2005) United Nations security council reform: a proposal for weighted voting. LSE-CPNSS 4th annual conference
[46] Riker WH (1986) The first power index. Soc Choice Welf 3: 293–295. doi: 10.1007/BF00292733 · doi:10.1007/BF00292733
[47] Russell B (1938) Power: a new social analysis. George Allen and Unwin, London
[48] Shannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Technol J 27:379–423, 623–656. · Zbl 1154.94303
[49] Shapley LS (1953) A value for N-person games. In: Kuhn HW, Tucker AW, Contributions to the theory of games II (Annals of Mathematic Studies 28). Princeton University Press, Princeton
[50] Shapley LS, Shubik M (1954) A method of evaluating the distribution of power in a committee system. Am Polit Sci Rev 48: 787–792. doi: 10.2307/1951053 · doi:10.2307/1951053
[51] Steuneberg B, Smidtchen D, Koboldt C (1999) Strategic power in the European union: evaluating the distribution of power in policy games. J Theor Polit 11(3): 339–366. doi: 10.1177/0951692899011003005 · doi:10.1177/0951692899011003005
[52] Straffin PD (1977) Homogeneity, independence and power indices. Public Choice 30: 107–118. doi: 10.1007/BF01718820 · doi:10.1007/BF01718820
[53] Straffin PD (1978) Probability models for power indices. In: Peter O, Game theory and political science. New York University Press, New York
[54] Straffin PD (1988) The Shapley–Shubik and Banzhaf power indices as probabilities. In: Alvin R, The Shapley value: essays in honor of Lloyd Shapley. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
[55] Weber M (1978, 1921–1922) In: Guenther R, Wittich C (eds) Economy and society: an outline of interpretive sociology. University of California Press, Berkeley
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.