Weighted Committee Games

12/08/2017
by   Sascha Kurz, et al.
0

Weighted committee games generalize n-player simple voting games to m> 3 alternatives. The committee's aggregation rule treats votes anonymously but parties, shareholders, members of supranational organizations, etc. differ in their numbers of votes. Infinitely many vote distributions induce only finitely many distinct mappings from preference profiles to winners, i.e., non-equivalent committees. We identify and compare all committees which use Borda, Copeland, plurality or antiplurality rule. Their geometry and differing numbers of equivalence classes - e.g., 51 for Borda vs. 4 for Copeland rule if n=m=3 - have so far escaped notice. They determine voting equilibria, the distribution of power and other aspects of collective choice.

READ FULL TEXT

page 25

page 26

page 28

page 29

research
12/21/2019

Influence in Weighted Committees

A committee's decisions on more than two alternatives much depend on the...
research
12/22/2021

The Art and Beauty of Voting Power

We exhibit the hidden beauty of weighted voting and voting power by appl...
research
06/09/2020

Are weighted games sufficiently good for binary voting?

Binary yes-no decisions in a legislative committee or a shareholder meet...
research
05/10/2019

Average Weights and Power in Weighted Voting Games

We investigate a class of weighted voting games for which weights are ra...
research
12/01/2021

A note on simple games with two equivalence classes of players

Many real-world voting systems consist of voters that occur in just two ...
research
09/23/2015

Boolean Hedonic Games

We study hedonic games with dichotomous preferences. Hedonic games are c...
research
02/26/2023

Participatory Budgeting Design for the Real World

Participatory budgeting engages the public in the process of allocating ...

Please sign up or login with your details

Forgot password? Click here to reset