IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ivi/wpasad/2004-30.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Success Versus Decisiveness: Conceptual Discussion And Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Federico Valenciano

    () (Universidad del País Vasco)

  • Annick Laruelle

    (Universidad de Alicante)

  • Ricardo Martínez

    (Universidad de La Rioja)

Abstract

In this paper, we vindicate the relevance of the notion of success or satisfaction for the normative assessment of voting rules. We provide arguments in support of this view and emphasize the conceptual and analytical differences between this notion and that of decisiveness. The conclusions are illustrated in the case study provided by three different voting rules that have been proposed for the Council of Ministers of the European Union.

Suggested Citation

  • Federico Valenciano & Annick Laruelle & Ricardo Martínez, 2004. "Success Versus Decisiveness: Conceptual Discussion And Case Study," Working Papers. Serie AD 2004-30, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
  • Handle: RePEc:ivi:wpasad:2004-30
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ivie.es/downloads/docs/wpasad/wpasad-2004-30.pdf
    File Function: Fisrt version / Primera version, 2004
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of 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. Federico Valenciano & Annick Laruelle & Ricardo Martínez, 2004. "On The Difficulty Of Making Decisions Within The Eu-25," Working Papers. Serie AD 2004-15, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    3. Madeleine O. Hosli & Moshé Machover, 2004. "The Nice Treaty and Voting Rules in the Council: A Reply to Moberg (2002)," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(3), pages 497-521, September.
    4. Axel Moberg, 2002. "The Nice Treaty and Voting Rules in the Council," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(2), pages 259-282, June.
    5. Hosli, Madeleine O., 1993. "Admission of European Free Trade Association states to the European Community: effects on voting power in the European Community Council of Ministers," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 47(04), pages 629-643, September.
    6. Laruelle, Annick & Widgren, Mika, 1998. "Is the Allocation of Voting Power among EU States Fair?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 94(3-4), pages 317-339, March.
    7. Moshé Machover & Dan S. Felsenthal, 2001. "The Treaty of Nice and qualified majority voting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 18(3), pages 431-464.
    8. Benoit, Jean-Pierre & Kornhauser, Lewis A., 2002. "Game-theoretic analysis of legal rules and institutions," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications,in: R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 60, pages 2229-2269 Elsevier.
    9. 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)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ibarzabal Laka, Nora & Laruelle, Annick, 2015. "Ghost seats in the Basque Parliament," IKERLANAK IKERLANAK;2015-88, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Fundamentos del Análisis Económico I.
    2. Laurent, Thibault & Le Breton, Michel & Lepelley, Dominique & de Mouzon, Olivier, 2017. "Exploring the Effects on the Electoral College of National and Regional Popular Vote Interstate Compact: An Electoral Engineering Perspective," TSE Working Papers 17-861, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised May 2018.
    3. 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.
    4. Le Breton, Michel & Lepelley, Dominique & Macé, Antonin & Merlin, Vincent, 2016. "Le Mécanisme Optimal de Vote au Sein du Conseil des Représentants d'un Système Fédéral," TSE Working Papers 16-617, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Dec 2016.
    5. Le Breton, Michel & Lepelley, Dominique & Macé, Antonin & Merlin, Vincent, 2016. "Le Mécanisme Optimal de Vote au Sein du Conseil des Représentants d'un Système Fédéral," TSE Working Papers 16-617, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Dec 2016.
    6. Josep Freixas & Montserrat Pons, 2015. "Success and decisiveness on proper symmetric games," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 23(4), pages 779-794, December.
    7. Freixas, Josep & Pons, Montserrat, 2008. "Circumstantial power: Optimal persuadable voters," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(3), pages 1114-1126, May.
    8. Alaitz Artabe & Annick Laruelle & Federico Valenciano, 2012. "Preferences, actions and voting rules," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 3(1), pages 15-28, March.
    9. René van den Brink & Frank Steffen, 2012. "On the Measurement of Success and Satisfaction," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 12-030/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    10. Josep Freixas & Montserrat Pons, 0. "Using the Multilinear Extension to Study Some Probabilistic Power Indices," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-16.
    11. repec:eee:ejores:v:264:y:2018:i:1:p:354-363 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Elisabetta Croci Angelini, 2007. "Resisting Globalization: Voting Power Indices and the National Interest in the EU Decision-making," Working Papers 08-2007, Macerata University, Department of Studies on Economic Development (DiSSE), revised Feb 2009.
    13. Michel Breton & Karine Straeten, 2015. "Influence versus utility in the evaluation of voting rules: a new look at the Penrose formula," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 103-122, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Voting; European Union; Power indices;

    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:ivi:wpasad:2004-30. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Departamento de Edición). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/ievages.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.