Location of Repository

Equal representation in two-tier voting systems

By Nicola Maaser and Stefan Napel

Abstract

The paper investigates how voting weights should be assigned to differently sized constituencies of an assembly. The one-person, one-vote principle is interpreted as calling for a priori equal indirect influence on decisions. The latter are elements of a one-dimensional convex policy space and may result from strategic behavior consistent with the median voter theorem. Numerous artificial constituency configurations, the EU and the US are investigated by Monte-Carlo simulations. Penrose’s square root rule, which originally applies to preference-free dichotomous decision environments and holds only under very specific conditions, comes close to ensuring equal representation. It is thus more robust than previously suggested

Topics: JF
Publisher: University of Warwick. Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation
Year: 2005
OAI identifier: oai:wrap.warwick.ac.uk:1918

Suggested articles

Preview

Citations

  1. (2000). A bargaining model of social choice. doi
  2. (1992). A First Course in Order Statistics. doi
  3. (1954). A method for evaluating the distribution of power in a committee system. doi
  4. (1981). A note on the probability of casting a decisive vote. doi
  5. (2005). A utilitarian assessment of alternative decision rules in the Council of Ministers. doi
  6. (2004). Analysis of QM rules in the draft Constitution for Europe proposed by the European Convention. doi
  7. (2003). Computing power indices in weighted multiple majority games. doi
  8. (2004). Council voting in the Constitutional Treaty: Devil in the details. Policy Brief 53, Centre for European Policy Studies.
  9. (2002). Designing the voting system for the EU Council of Ministers.
  10. (2002). Equal votes, equal money: Court-ordered redistricting and the distribution of public expenditures in the American States. doi
  11. (1975). Estimating the efficacy of a vote. doi
  12. Heribert Dieter Bilateral Trade Afreements in the Asia-Pacific: Wise or Foolish Policies? 184/05 December Gero Erdmann Hesitant Bedfellows: The German Stiftungen and Party Aid in Africa. Attempt at an Assessment
  13. (2004). Letter to the governments of the EU member states. URL (consulted last in
  14. (2005). Majority efficient representation of the citizens in a federal union. mimeo, Université de la Réunion, Université de Caen, and Université d’Orleans.
  15. (1999). Measuring the electoral and policy impact of majorityminority voting districts. doi
  16. (2001). Nice Try: Should the Treaty of Nice Be Ratified? Monitoring European Integration 11. London: Center for Economic Policy Research.
  17. (2004). On the rank-size distribution for human settlements. doi
  18. (2005). On the weights of nations: Assigning voting weights in a heterogeneous union. mimeo, CODE, doi
  19. (1968). One man, 3.312 votes: A mathematical analysis of the Electoral College.
  20. Penrose’s limit theorem: Proof of some special cases. doi
  21. (2002). Plurality rule, proportional representation, and the German Bundestag: How incentives to pork-barrel differ across electoral systems. doi
  22. (2003). Power indices as an aid to institutional design: The generalised apportio nment problem. In
  23. (2003). Reapportionmente and redistribution: Consequences of electoral reform in Japan. doi
  24. (1999). Simple Games. doi
  25. (2004). Standard voting power indexes don’t work: An empirical analysis. doi
  26. (2006). Success versus decisiveness: Conceptual discussion and case study. doi
  27. (1962). The Calculus of Consent. doi
  28. (1946). The elementary statistics of majority voting. doi
  29. (2006). The inter-institutional distribution of power in EU codecision. Social Choice and Welfare (forthcoming). doi
  30. (2002). The mathematics and statistics of voting power. doi
  31. (2000). The power of design.
  32. (1978). The Presidential Election Game. doi
  33. (2001). The Treaty of Nice and qualified majority voting. doi
  34. (1960). Values of large games, IV: Evaluating the Electoral College by Monte Carlo techniques. Memorandum RM-2651, The Rand Cor poration.
  35. (1962). Values of large games, VI: Evaluating the Electoral College exactly. Memorandum RM-3158-PR, The Rand Corporation.
  36. (1965). Weighted voting doesn’t work: A mathematical analysis.
  37. (2005). Why degressive proportionality? An argument from cartel formation. mimeo,
  38. (1999). Zipf’s law for cities: An explanation. doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.