IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/83168.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Correlation and inequality in weighted majority voting games

Author

Listed:
  • Bhattacherjee, Sanjay
  • Sarkar, Palash

Abstract

In a weighted majority voting game, the weights of the players are determined based on some socio-economic parameter. A number of measures have been proposed to measure the voting powers of the different players. A basic question in this area is to what extent does the variation in the voting powers reflect the variation in the weights? The voting powers depend on the winning threshold. So, a second question is what is the appropriate value of the winning threshold? In this work, we propose two simple ideas to address these and related questions in a quantifiable manner. The first idea is to use Pearson's Correlation Coefficient between the weight vector and the power profile to measure the similarity between weight and power. The second idea is to use standard inequality measures to quantify the inequality in the weight vector as well as in the power profile. These two ideas answer the first question. Both the weight-power similarity and inequality scores of voting power profiles depend on the value of the winning threshold. For situations of practical interest, it turns out that it is possible to choose a value of the winning threshold which maximises the similarity score and the also minimises the difference in the inequality scores of the weight vector and the power profile. This provides an answer to the second question. Using the above formalisation, we are able to quantitatively argue that it is sufficient to consider only the vector of swings for the players as the power measure. We apply our methodology to the voting games arising in the decision making processes of the International Monetory Fund (IMF) and the European Union (EU). In the case of IMF, we provide quantitative evidence that the actual winning threshold that is currently used is sub-optimal and instead propose a winning threshold which has a firm analytical backing. On the other hand, in the case of EU, we provide quantitative evidence that the presently used threshold is very close to the optimal.

Suggested Citation

  • Bhattacherjee, Sanjay & Sarkar, Palash, 2017. "Correlation and inequality in weighted majority voting games," MPRA Paper 83168, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:83168
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/83168/1/MPRA_paper_83168.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/86363/1/MPRA_paper_86363.pdf
    File Function: revised version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dennis Leech, 2002. "Voting Power in the Governance of the International Monetary Fund," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 109(1), pages 375-397, January.
    2. Einy, Ezra & Peleg, Bezalel, 1991. "Linear measures of inequality for cooperative games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 328-344, April.
    3. Annick Laruelle & Federico Valenciano, 2004. "Inequality in voting power," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 22(2), pages 413-431, April.
    4. Barua, Rana & Chakravarty, Satya R. & Sarkar, Palash, 2009. "Minimal-axiom characterizations of the Coleman and Banzhaf indices of voting power," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 367-375, November.
    5. (*), Gerard van der Laan & RenÊ van den Brink, 1998. "Axiomatizations of the normalized Banzhaf value and the Shapley value," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 15(4), pages 567-582.
    6. Laruelle,Annick & Valenciano,Federico, 2011. "Voting and Collective Decision-Making," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521182638.
    7. Shorrocks, A F, 1980. "The Class of Additively Decomposable Inequality Measures," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 48(3), pages 613-625, April.
    8. Annick Laruelle & Federico Valenciano, 2001. "Shapley-Shubik and Banzhaf Indices Revisited," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 26(1), pages 89-104, February.
    9. Dan S. Felsenthal & Moshé Machover, 1998. "The Measurement of Voting Power," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1489.
    10. Pradeep Dubey & Lloyd S. Shapley, 1979. "Mathematical Properties of the Banzhaf Power Index," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 4(2), pages 99-131, May.
    11. 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.
    12. Chakravarty,Satya R. & Mitra,Manipushpak & Sarkar,Palash, 2015. "A Course on Cooperative Game Theory," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107058798.
    13. Weber, Matthias, 2016. "Two-tier voting: Measuring inequality and specifying the inverse power problem," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 40-45.
    14. Leech, Dennis, 2002. "Designing the Voting System for the Council of the European Union," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 113(3-4), pages 437-464, December.
    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. Bhattacherjee, Sanjay & Sarkar, Palash, 2018. "Voting in the Goods and Service Tax Council of India," MPRA Paper 86239, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Sascha Kurz & Stefan Napel, 2014. "Heuristic and exact solutions to the inverse power index problem for small voting bodies," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 215(1), pages 137-163, April.
    3. Le Breton, Michel & Lepelley, Dominique & Macé, Antonin & Merlin, Vincent, 2017. "Le mécanisme optimal de vote au sein du conseil des représentants d’un système fédéral," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 93(1-2), pages 203-248, Mars-Juin.
    4. Barua, Rana & Chakravarty, Satya R. & Roy, Sonali, 2006. "On the Coleman indices of voting power," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 171(1), pages 273-289, May.
    5. Josep Freixas & Sascha Kurz, 2014. "Enumeration of weighted games with minimum and an analysis of voting power for bipartite complete games with minimum," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 222(1), pages 317-339, November.
    6. Di Giannatale, Paolo & Passarelli, Francesco, 2013. "Voting chances instead of voting weights," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 164-173.
    7. Houy, Nicolas & Zwicker, William S., 2014. "The geometry of voting power: Weighted voting and hyper-ellipsoids," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 7-16.
    8. Barua, Rana & Chakravarty, Satya R. & Sarkar, Palash, 2009. "Minimal-axiom characterizations of the Coleman and Banzhaf indices of voting power," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 367-375, November.
    9. Bhattacherjee, Sanjay & Chakravarty, Satya R. & Sarkar, Palash, 2022. "A General Model for Multi-Parameter Weighted Voting Games," MPRA Paper 115407, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Boratyn, Daria & Kirsch, Werner & Słomczyński, Wojciech & Stolicki, Dariusz & Życzkowski, Karol, 2020. "Average weights and power in weighted voting games," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 90-99.
    11. André Casajus & Frank Huettner, 2019. "The Coleman–Shapley index: being decisive within the coalition of the interested," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 181(3), pages 275-289, December.
    12. 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.
    13. Fabrice Barthelemy & Mathieu Martin, 2011. "A Comparison Between the Methods of Apportionment Using Power Indices: the Case of the US Presidential Elections," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 101-102, pages 87-106.
    14. Paul Schure & Amy Verdun, 2008. "Legislative Bargaining in the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 9(4), pages 459-486, December.
    15. Ori Haimanko, 2019. "Composition independence in compound games: a characterization of the Banzhaf power index and the Banzhaf value," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 48(3), pages 755-768, September.
    16. Kurz, Sascha & Maaser, Nicola & Napel, Stefan, 2018. "Fair representation and a linear Shapley rule," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 152-161.
    17. Matthias Weber, 2014. "Choosing Voting Systems behind the Veil of Ignorance: A Two-Tier Voting Experiment," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 14-042/I, Tinbergen Institute.
    18. Ori Haimanko, 2020. "Generalized Coleman-Shapley indices and total-power monotonicity," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 49(1), pages 299-320, March.
    19. Michel Grabisch & Agnieszka Rusinowska, 2010. "A model of influence in a social network," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(1), pages 69-96, July.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Voting games; weighted majority; power measure; correlation; inequality; Gini index; coefficient of variation.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C1 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General
    • C15 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Statistical Simulation Methods: General
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • D78 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Positive Analysis of Policy Formulation and Implementation
    • Y1 - Miscellaneous Categories - - Data: Tables and Charts

    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:pra:mprapa:83168. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    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.