IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2602.13894.html

Existence of Fair Resolute Voting Rules

Author

Listed:
  • Manik Dhar
  • Kunal Mittal
  • Clayton Thomas

Abstract

Among two-candidate elections that treat the candidates symmetrically and never result in a tie, which voting rules are fair? A natural requirement is that each voter exerts an equal influence over the outcome, i.e., is equally likely to swing the election one way or the other. A voter's influence has been formalized in two canonical ways: the Shapley-Shubik (1954) index and the Banzhaf (1964) index. We consider both indices, and ask: Which electorate sizes admit a fair voting rule (under the respective index)? For an odd number $n$ of voters, simple majority rule is an example of a fair voting rule. However, when $n$ is even, fair voting rules can be challenging to identify, and a diverse literature has studied this problem under different notions of fairness. Our main results completely characterize which values of $n$ admit fair voting rules under the two canonical indices we consider. For the Shapley-Shubik index, a fair voting rule exists for $n>1$ if and only if $n$ is not a power of $2$. For the Banzhaf index, a fair voting rule exists for all $n$ except $2$, $4$, and $8$. Along the way, we show how the Shapley-Shubik and Banzhaf indices relate to the winning coalitions of the voting rule, and compare these indices to previously considered notions of fairness.

Suggested Citation

  • Manik Dhar & Kunal Mittal & Clayton Thomas, 2026. "Existence of Fair Resolute Voting Rules," Papers 2602.13894, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2602.13894
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2602.13894
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Laurent Bartholdi & Wade Hann‐Caruthers & Maya Josyula & Omer Tamuz & Leeat Yariv, 2021. "Equitable Voting Rules," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 89(2), pages 563-589, March.
    2. Annick Laruelle & Federico Valenciano, 2001. "Shapley-Shubik and Banzhaf Indices Revisited," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 26(1), pages 89-104, February.
    3. 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.
    4. repec:cup:apsrev:v:48:y:1954:i:03:p:787-792_00 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Friedman, Jane & Parker, Cameron, 2018. "The conditional Shapley–Shubik measure for ternary voting games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 379-390.
    2. Leech, Dennis, 2002. "Power Indices As An Aid To Institutional Design : The Generalised Apportionment Problem," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 648, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    3. 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.
    4. Berghammer, Rudolf & Bolus, Stefan & Rusinowska, Agnieszka & de Swart, Harrie, 2011. "A relation-algebraic approach to simple games," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 210(1), pages 68-80, April.
    5. Leech, Dennis, 2002. "The Use Of Coleman'S Power Indices To Inform The Choice Of Voting Rule With Reference To The Imf Governing Body And The Eu Council Of Ministers," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 645, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    6. Bhattacherjee, Sanjay & Sarkar, Palash, 2017. "Correlation and inequality in weighted majority voting games," MPRA Paper 83168, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Giulia Bernardi, 2018. "A New Axiomatization of the Banzhaf Index for Games with Abstention," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 165-177, February.
    8. Claus-Jochen Haake & Martin R. Schneider, 2026. "An axiomatization of the Banzhaf index to measure influence in qualitative comparative analysis," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 55(1), pages 1-14, June.
    9. Encarnaciön Algaba & Sylvain Béal & Eric Rémila & Phillippe Solal, 2018. "Harsanyi power solutions for cooperative games on voting structures," Working Papers 2018-05, CRESE.
    10. Bertrand Mbama Engoulou & Pierre Wambo & Lawrence Diffo Lambo, 2023. "A Characterization of the Totally Critical Raw Banzhaf Power Index on Dichotomous Voting Games with Several Levels of Approval in Input," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 871-888, August.
    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. Bertrand Mbama Engoulou & Pierre Wambo & Lawrence Diffo Lambo, 2023. "Banzhaf–Coleman–Dubey–Shapley sensitivity index for simple multichoice voting games," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 328(2), pages 1349-1364, September.
    13. Conrado M. Manuel & Daniel Martín, 2021. "A Monotonic Weighted Banzhaf Value for Voting Games," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-23, June.
    14. Francesc Carreras & María Albina Puente, 2012. "Symmetric Coalitional Binomial Semivalues," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(5), pages 637-662, September.
    15. Clinton Gubong Gassi, 2025. "A characterization of the Myerson value for cooperative games on voting structures," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 99(3), pages 557-572, November.
    16. Rene (J.R.) van den Brink & Osman Palanci & S. Zeynep Alparslan Gok, 2017. "Interval Solutions for Tu-games," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 17-094/II, Tinbergen Institute.
    17. Donal G. Saari & Katri K. Sieberg, 1999. "Some Surprising Properties of Power Indices," Discussion Papers 1271, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    18. Borkowski, Agnieszka, 2003. "Machtverteilung Im Ministerrat Nach Dem Vertrag Von Nizza Und Den Konventsvorschlagen In Einer Erweiterten Europaischen Union," IAMO Discussion Papers 14887, Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO).
    19. Claus-Jochen Haake & Martin R. Schneider, 2025. "An Axiomatization of the Banzhaf Index to Measure Influence in Qualitative Comparative Analysis," Working Papers CIE 162, Paderborn University, CIE Center for International Economics.
    20. van den Brink, René, 2012. "Efficiency and collusion neutrality in cooperative games and networks," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 344-348.

    More about this item

    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:arx:papers:2602.13894. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arxiv.org/ .

    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.