Postulates and paradoxes of relative voting power — A critical re-appraisal
Postulates and paradoxes of relative voting power — A critical re-appraisal
复制标题
相对投票权的假设和悖论——批判性的重新评估
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1995
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Machover
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
D. Felsenthal;M. Machover
本文对议会中选民先验相对投票权的度量问题进行了重新评价。我们提出了几个新的直观上令人信服的立场，任何合理的投票权指标都应该满足这些条件。与此同时，我们认为，文献中讨论的大多数投票权悖论即使有悖论，也只是在弱意义上的悖论。这就留下了三个严重的悖论--众所周知的加权投票悖论，以及这里提出的两个新悖论：集团悖论和捐赠悖论。我们对文献中讨论的关于这三个严重悖论的四个主要相对权力指数进行了评估。Shapley-Shubik指数被认为不受这三个悖论的影响，而Deegan-Packel指数则容易受到这三个悖论的影响。班扎夫指数和约翰斯顿指数显然不受加权投票悖论的影响。然而，事实证明，他们同时受到了欧盟和捐赠悖论的影响。我们认为，这对这些指数造成了前所未有的严重破坏。文中还讨论了与投票权有关的其他几个理论问题。
This paper re-evaluates the problem of measuring thea priori relative voting power of a voter in an assembly. We propose several new intuitively compelling postualtes that any reasonable index of voting power ought to satisfy. At the same time we argue that most of the paradoxes of voting power discussed in the literature are paradoxical only in a weak sense, if at all. This leaves three crippling paradoxes — the well-known paradox ofweighted voting, and two new ones presented here: thebloc anddonation paradoxes. We evaluate the four main relative power indices discussed in the literature with respect to these three severe paradoxes. The Shapley-Shubik index is seen to be immune to all three paradoxes, while the Deegan-Packel index is vulnerable to all three. The Banzhaf and the Johnston indices are demonstrably immune to the paradox of weighted voting. However, they are shown to suffer from both the bloc and the donation paradoxes. We argue that this seriously undermines these indices in a hitherto unsuspected way. Several other theoretical issues relating to voting power are discussed.