Welfare ordering of voting weight allocations

Springer Science and Business Media LLC - Tập 61 - Trang 801-816 - 2023
Kazuya Kikuchi1
1Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, Tokyo, Japan

Tóm tắt

This paper studies the allocation of voting weights in a committee representing groups of different sizes. We introduce a partial ordering of weight allocations based on stochastic comparison of social welfare. We show that when the number of groups is sufficiently large, this ordering asymptotically coincides with the total ordering induced by the cosine proportionality between the weights and the group sizes. A corollary is that a class of expectation-form objective functions, including expected welfare, the mean majority deficit and the probability of inversions, are asymptotically monotone in the cosine proportionality.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Azzalini A, Valle AD (1996) The multivariate skew-normal distribution. Biometrika 83(4):715–726

Balinski ML, Young HP (2010) Fair representation: meeting the ideal of one man, one vote. Brookings Institution Press

Barberà S, Jackson MO (2006) On the weights of nations: assigning voting weights in a heterogeneous union. J Polit Econ 114:317–339

Beisbart C, Bovens L (2007) Welferist evaluations of decision rules for boards of representatives. Soc Choice Welf 29:581–608

Beisbart C, Bovens L (2008) A power analysis of amendment 36 in Colorado. Public Choice 134:231–246

Billingsley P (2008) Probability and measure. John Wiley & Sons

De Mouzon O, Laurent T, Le Breton M, Lepelley D (2020) The theoretical Shapley-Shubik probability of an election inversion in a toy symmetric version of the US presidential electoral system. Soc Choice Welfare 54(2):363–395

Feix MR, Lepelley D, Merlin VR, Rouet J-L (2004) The probability of conflicts in a US presidential type election. Econ Theor 23(2):227–257

Felsenthal DS, Machover M (1999) Minimizing the mean majority deficit: the second square-root rule. Math Soc Sci 37(1):25–37

Ferguson TS (2017) A course in large sample theory. Routledge

Hinich MJ, Mickelsen R, Ordeshook PC (1975) The electoral college vs. a direct vote: policy bias, reversals, and indeterminate outcomes. J Math Sociol 4(1):3–35

Kaniovski S, Zaigraev A (2018) The probability of majority inversion in a two-stage voting system with three states. Theor Decis 84(4):525–546

Koppel M, Diskin A (2009) Measuring disproportionality, volatility and malapportionment: axiomatization and solutions. Soc Choice Welf 33(2):281

Koriyama Y, Laslier J-F, Macé A, Treibich R (2013) Optimal apportionment. J Polit Econ 121:584–608

Kurz S, Maaser N, Napel S (2017) On the democratic weights of nations. J Polit Econ 125:1599–1634

Lindner I, Machover M (2004) L.S. Penrose’s limit theorem: proof of some special cases. Math Soc Sci 47(1):37–49

Maaser N, Napel S (2012) A note on the direct democracy deficit in two-tier voting. Math Soc Sci 63(2):174–180

Maaser N, Napel S (2014) The mean voter, the median voter, and welfare-maximizing voting weights. Voting Power and Procedures. Springer, pp 159–176

May K (1948) Probabilities of certain election results. Amer Math Monthly 55:203–209

Owen DB (1980) A table of normal integrals: a table. Commun Stat Simul Comput 9(4):389–419

Penrose LS (1946) The elementary statistics of majority voting. J Roy Stat Soc 109:53–57

Wada J (2010) Evaluating the unfairness of representation with the Nash social welfare function. J Theor Polit 22(4):445–467

Williams D (1991) Probability with martingales. Cambridge University Press

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Tập 61

801-816

Thông tin tác giả