IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ijethy/v18y2022i3p382-401.html

Ranking nomination rules on the basis of nominating power distributions

Author

Listed:
  • Yukinori Iwata

Abstract

In this study, we explore a method of ranking nomination rules as a collective decision‐making procedure. Nomination rules determine which alternatives are eligible for collective decision‐making by aggregating the opinions of nominators, which are expressed positively or negatively. It is possible to compare nomination rules based on their “nominating power” distributions because they can be seen as multiple simple games. Our nomination rules ranking has a two‐step aggregation representation. In the first step, the distribution of nominating power with regard to each issue is aggregated into an indicator based on the sign inversion of the inequality measure of voting power in simple games, as proposed by Laruelle and Valenciano (2004). Subsequently, in the second step, the aggregator sums the indicator on each issue. We add a separability axiom to the set of Laruelle and Valenciano's axioms to characterize our nomination rules ranking that has the two‐step aggregation representation.

Suggested Citation

  • Yukinori Iwata, 2022. "Ranking nomination rules on the basis of nominating power distributions," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 18(3), pages 382-401, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ijethy:v:18:y:2022:i:3:p:382-401
    DOI: 10.1111/ijet.12297
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijet.12297
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ijet.12297?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Annick Laruelle & Federico Valenciano, 2005. "Assessing success and decisiveness in voting situations," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 24(1), pages 171-197, January.
    2. Thibault Gajdos & John Weymark, 2005. "Multidimensional generalized Gini indices," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 26(3), pages 471-496, October.
    3. Claus Beisbart & Luc Bovens, 2008. "A power measure analysis of Amendment 36 in Colorado," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 134(3), pages 231-246, March.
    4. Einy, Ezra & Peleg, Bezalel, 1991. "Linear measures of inequality for cooperative games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 328-344, April.
    5. Weymark, John A., 1981. "Generalized gini inequality indices," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 1(4), pages 409-430, August.
    6. Samet, Dov & Schmeidler, David, 2003. "Between liberalism and democracy," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 110(2), pages 213-233, June.
    7. Myerson, Roger B, 1981. "Utilitarianism, Egalitarianism, and the Timing Effect in Social Choice Problems," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(4), pages 883-897, June.
    8. Yukinori Iwata, 2016. "The possibility of Arrovian social choice with the process of nomination," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 81(4), pages 535-552, November.
    9. 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.
    10. Biung-Ghi Ju, 2010. "Individual powers and social consent: an axiomatic approach," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 34(4), pages 571-596, April.
    11. Pattanaik, Prasanta K & Suzumura, Kotaro, 1994. "Rights, Welfarism, and Social Choice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(2), pages 435-439, May.
    12. 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.
    13. Pattanaik, Prasanta K & Suzumura, Kotaro, 1996. "Individual Rights and Social Evaluation: A Conceptual Framework," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(2), pages 194-212, April.
    14. Bolger, Edward M, 1993. "A Value for Games with n Players and r Alternatives," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 22(4), pages 319-334.
    15. Laruelle, Annick & Valenciano, Federico, 2002. "Inequality among EU citizens in the EU's Council decision procedure," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 475-498, September.
    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. Michel Le Breton & Dominique Lepelley & Antonin Macé & Vincent Merlin, 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Bhattacherjee, Sanjay & Sarkar, Palash, 2017. "Correlation and inequality in weighted majority voting games," MPRA Paper 83168, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. René Brink & Agnieszka Rusinowska & Frank Steffen, 2013. "Measuring power and satisfaction in societies with opinion leaders: an axiomatization," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 41(3), pages 671-683, September.
    6. Matthias Weber, 2014. "Solving the Inverse Power Problem in Two-Tier Voting Settings," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 14-019/I, Tinbergen Institute.
    7. Claus Beisbart, 2010. "Groups can make a difference: voting power measures extended," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(3), pages 469-488, September.
    8. Alexander Zaigraev & Serguei Kaniovski, 2012. "Bounds on the competence of a homogeneous jury," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 72(1), pages 89-112, January.
    9. Josep Freixas & Dorota Marciniak, 2013. "Egalitarian property for power indices," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(1), pages 207-227, January.
    10. Banerjee, Asis Kumar, 2010. "A multidimensional Gini index," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 87-93, September.
    11. Suzumura, Kotaro & Xu, Yongsheng, 2001. "Characterizations of Consequentialism and Nonconsequentialism," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 423-436, December.
    12. Balázs Sziklai, 2018. "How to identify experts in a community?," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 47(1), pages 155-173, March.
    13. repec:ehu:ikerla:6256 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Josep Freixas & Montserrat Pons, 2017. "Using the Multilinear Extension to Study Some Probabilistic Power Indices," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 437-452, May.
    15. John Weymark, 2003. "Generalized Gini Indices of Equality of Opportunity," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 1(1), pages 5-24, April.
    16. Madeleine Hosli & Rebecca Moody & Bryan O’Donovan & Serguei Kaniovski & Anna Little, 2011. "Squaring the circle? Collective and distributive effects of United Nations Security Council reform," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 163-187, July.
    17. Marcello Basili & Paulo Casaca & Alain Chateauneuf & Maurizio Franzini, 2017. "Multidimensional Pigou–Dalton transfers and social evaluation functions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(4), pages 573-590, December.
    18. Arash Abizadeh & Adrian Vetta, 2022. "A General Framework for a Class of Quarrels: The Quarrelling Paradox Revisited," Papers 2205.08353, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2025.
    19. Ok, Efe A. & Zhou, Lin, 2000. "The Choquet Bargaining Solutions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 249-264, November.
    20. Agnieszka Rusinowska, 2007. "The not-preference-based Hoede-Bakker index," Post-Print halshs-00142482, HAL.
    21. Agnieszka Rusinowska, 2010. "The Hoede–Bakker Index Modified to the Shapley–Shubik and Holler–Packel Indices," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 19(6), pages 543-569, November.

    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:bla:ijethy:v:18:y:2022:i:3:p:382-401. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1742-7355 .

    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.