IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tse/wpaper/124204.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

One Man, One Vote Part 2: Measurement of Malapportionment and Disproportionality and the Lorenz Curve

Author

Listed:
  • de Mouzon, Olivier
  • Laurent, Thibault
  • Le Breton, Michel

Abstract

The main objective of this paper is to explore and estimate the departure from the “One Man, One Vote” principle in the context of political representation and its consequences for distributive politics. To proceed to the measurement of the inequalities in the representation of territories (geographical under/over representation) or opinions/parties (ideological under/over representation), we import (with some important qualifications and adjustments) the Lorenz curve which is an important tool in the economics of income distribution. We consider subsequently some malapportionment and disproportionality indices. It is applied to the 2010 Electoral College and the French parliamentary and local elections with a special attention to the electoral reform of 2015. In these applications, the Lorenz curve ordering is almost conclusive and consequently the Gini and DK indices are aligned and complement the almost complete ranking derived from Lorenz.

Suggested Citation

  • de Mouzon, Olivier & Laurent, Thibault & Le Breton, Michel, 2020. "One Man, One Vote Part 2: Measurement of Malapportionment and Disproportionality and the Lorenz Curve," TSE Working Papers 20-1089, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    • Handle: RePEc:tse:wpaper:124204
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.tse-fr.eu/sites/default/files/TSE/documents/doc/wp/2020/wp_tse_1089.pdf
    File Function: Full Text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Baron, David P. & Ferejohn, John A., 1989. "Bargaining in Legislatures," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 83(4), pages 1181-1206, December.
    3. Luc Lauwers & Tom Puyenbroeck, 2006. "The Balinski–Young Comparison of Divisor Methods is Transitive," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 26(3), pages 603-606, June.
    4. Zaporozhets, Vera & García-Valiñas, María & Kurz, Sascha, 2016. "Key drivers of EU budget allocation: Does power matter?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 57-70.
    5. Olivier de Mouzon & Thibault Laurent & Michel Le Breton & Issofa Moyouwou, 2020. "“One Man One Vote”. Part 1: Electoral Justice in the U.S. Electoral College: Banzhaf and Shapley/Shubik versus May," Post-Print hal-03176208, HAL.
    6. Kauppi, Heikki & Widgren, Mika, 2007. "Voting rules and budget allocation in the enlarged EU," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 693-706, September.
    7. Noga Alon & Paul Edelman, 2010. "The inverse Banzhaf problem," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 34(3), pages 371-377, March.
    8. Ansolabehere, Stephen & Gerber, Alan & Snyder, Jim, 2002. "Equal Votes, Equal Money: Court-Ordered Redistricting and Public Expenditures in the American States," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 96(4), pages 767-777, December.
    9. Arthur F. Veinott, Jr., 1971. "Least d-Majorized Network Flows with Inventory and Statistical Applications," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(9), pages 547-567, May.
    10. 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.
    11. Stephen Ansolabehere & James M. Snyder & Aaron B. Strauss & Michael M. Ting, 2005. "Voting Weights and Formateur Advantages in the Formation of Coalition Governments," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(3), pages 550-563, July.
    12. Luc Lauwers & Tom Van Puyenbroeck, 2006. "The Hamilton Apportionment Method Is Between the Adams Method and the Jefferson Method," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 390-397, May.
    13. Montero, Maria, 2017. "Proportional Payoffs in Legislative Bargaining with Weighted Voting: A Characterization," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 12(3), pages 325-346, October.
    14. Colignatus, Thomas, 2017. "Two conditions for the application of Lorenz curve and Gini coefficient to voting and allocated seats," MPRA Paper 80297, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 21 Jul 2017.
    15. Laurent, Thibault & Ruiz-Gazen, Anne & Thomas-Agnan, Christine, 2012. "GeoXp: An R Package for Exploratory Spatial Data Analysis," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 47(i02).
    16. Montero, Maria, 2006. "Noncooperative foundations of the nucleolus in majority games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 380-397, February.
    17. Moshe Koppel & Abraham Diskin, 2009. "Measuring disproportionality, volatility and malapportionment: axiomatization and solutions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 33(2), pages 281-286, August.
    18. 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.
    19. Maaser, Nicola & Stratmann, Thomas, 2016. "Distributional consequences of political representation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 187-211.
    20. Friedrich Pukelsheim & Albert W. Marshall & Ingram Olkin, 2002. "A majorization comparison of apportionment methods in proportional representation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 19(4), pages 885-900.
    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. 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.
    2. Zaporozhets, Vera & García-Valiñas, María & Kurz, Sascha, 2016. "Key drivers of EU budget allocation: Does power matter?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 57-70.
    3. 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.
    4. Michel Le Breton & Karine Van Der Straeten, 2017. "Alliances Électorales et Gouvernementales : La Contribution de la Théorie des Jeux Coopératifs à la Science Politique," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 127(4), pages 637-736.
    5. Vera Zaporozhets & Mar'ia Garc'ia-Vali~nas & Sascha Kurz, 2015. "Key drivers of EU budget allocation: Does power matter?," Papers 1512.01267, arXiv.org.
    6. Sascha Kurz & Nicola Maaser & Stefan Napel & Matthias Weber, 2014. "Mostly Sunny: A Forecast of Tomorrow's Power Index Research," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 14-058/I, Tinbergen Institute.
    7. García-Valiñas, Maria A. & Zaporozhets, Vera, 2015. "Key-drivers of EU budget allocation: Does power matter?," TSE Working Papers 15-548, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    8. Deniz Aksoy, 2010. "Who gets what, when, and how revisited: Voting and proposal powers in the allocation of the EU budget," European Union Politics, , vol. 11(2), pages 171-194, June.
    9. Gomes, Armando, 2022. "Coalitional bargaining games: A new concept of value and coalition formation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 463-477.
    10. Le Breton, Michel & Thomas, Alban & Zaporozhets, Vera, 2012. "Bargaining in River Basin Committees: Rules Versus Discretion," LERNA Working Papers 12.12.369, LERNA, University of Toulouse.
    11. 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.
    12. Montero, Maria, 2017. "Proportional Payoffs in Legislative Bargaining with Weighted Voting: A Characterization," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 12(3), pages 325-346, October.
    13. Sebastian Galiani & Iván Torre & Gustavo Torrens, 2016. "Fiscal Federalism and Legislative Malapportionment: Causal Evidence from Independent but Related Natural Experiments," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(1), pages 133-159, March.
    14. Eraslan, Hülya & McLennan, Andrew, 2013. "Uniqueness of stationary equilibrium payoffs in coalitional bargaining," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(6), pages 2195-2222.
    15. Maaser, Nicola & Paetzel, Fabian & Traub, Stefan, 2019. "Power illusion in coalitional bargaining: An experimental analysis," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 433-450.
    16. Aaron Kamm & Simon Siegenthaler, 2024. "Commitment timing in coalitional bargaining," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 27(1), pages 130-154, March.
    17. Weber, Matthias, 2016. "Two-tier voting: Measuring inequality and specifying the inverse power problem," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 40-45.
    18. Matthias Weber, 2014. "Solving the Inverse Power Problem in Two-Tier Voting Settings," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 14-019/I, Tinbergen Institute.
    19. Tom Van Puyenbroeck, 2008. "Proportional Representation, Gini Coefficients, and the Principle of Transfers," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 20(4), pages 498-526, October.
    20. José Gutiérrez, 2015. "Majorization comparison of closed list electoral systems through a matrix theorem," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 235(1), pages 807-814, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Apportionment; Disproportionality; Electoral Justice; Lorenz Curve;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior

    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:tse:wpaper:124204. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/tsetofr.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.