Power Indices and the Design of Electoral/Constitutional Systems

  • Ron J. Johnston
Chapter

Abstract

The literature on power indices is very large, but it has had little impact on public debate regarding various aspects of constitutional reform and the design of electoral and voting systems. The need for such an impact is very substantial, as illustrated by three recent examples drawn from New Zealand and the UK. But researchers who use power indices seem to prefer to be scholars (working in ‘ivory towers’) rather than technocrats or emancipators who might engineer or stimulate informed change: their research has very little impact.

Keywords

Power Index Electoral System Coalition Formation Liberal Democrat Party Approval Vote 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bechofer, F. (1996), “Quantitative research in British sociology: has it changed since 1981?”, Sociology, 30, 583–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benoit, K (1996), “Hungary’s ‘two-vote’ electoral system”, Representation, 33, 162–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berg, S., and M.J. Holler (1985), “Randomized decision rules in voting games: a model for strict proportional power”, Quality and Quantity, 20, 419–429.Google Scholar
  4. Blair, T. (1996), “Blair on the constitution: Democracy’s second age”, The Economist, 33–35.Google Scholar
  5. Bogdanor, V. (1997a), Power to the People: a Guide to Constitutional Reform, London: Victor Gollancz.Google Scholar
  6. Bogdanor, V. (1997b), “First-past-the post: an electoral system which is difficult to defend”, Representation, 34, 80–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boston, J., S. Levine, E. McLeay, and N.S. Roberts (1996), “Why did New Zealand adopt German-style proportional representation?”, Representation, 33, 134–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brains, S.J., and P.C. Fishburn (1983), Approval Voting, Boston: Birkhauser.Google Scholar
  9. Buchanan, J.M., and G. Tullock (1962), The Calculus of Consent: The Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  10. Catt, H, P. Harriss, and N.S. Roberts (1992), Voter’s Choice: Electoral Change in New Zealand, Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.Google Scholar
  11. Curtice, J. (1996), “Why the Additional Member System has won out in Scotland, Representation, 33, 119–124.Google Scholar
  12. Curtis, R.B. (1972), “Decision-rules and collective values in constitutional choice”, in: R.G. Niemi, and H.F. Weisberg (eds.), Probability Models of Collective Decision-Making, Columbus: Charles Merrill.Google Scholar
  13. Donovan, M. (1996), “Electoral reform in Italy”, Representation, 33, 141–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dunleavy, P., H. Margetts, B. O’Duffy, and S. Weir (1998), Making Votes Count, Colchester. Holler, M.J. (1982a), “Note on a paradox”, Jahrbuch fir Nationalökonomie and Statistik, 197, 251–257.Google Scholar
  15. Holler, M.J. (ed.) (1982b), Power, Voting and Voting Power, Würzburg-Vienna: Physica. Holler, M.J. (1985), “Strict proportional power in voting bodies”, Theory and Decision, 23, 249–258.Google Scholar
  16. Jackson, K. (1993), “The origins of the electoral referendums”, in: A.D. McRobie (ed.), Taking it to the People?, The New Zealand Electoral Reform Debate, Christchurch: Hazard Books, 12–23.Google Scholar
  17. Jenkins, R. (1995), Gladstone, London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  18. Jenkins, R. (1998), The Report of the Independent Commission on the Voting System, London: Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  19. Johnston, R.J. (1982), “An unresolved issue for electoral reformers”, Representation, 23 (90), 6–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnston, R.J. (1994), “The conflict over voting power in the European Union Council of Ministers”, Environment and Planning A, 26, 1001–1006.Google Scholar
  21. Johnston, R.J. (1995a), “Proportional representation and proportional power”, Politics Review, 4 (4), 28–33.Google Scholar
  22. Johnston, R.J. (1995b), “The conflict over qualified majority voting in the European Union Council of Ministers: an analysis of the UK negotiating stance using power indices”, British Journal of Political Science, 25, 245–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Johnston, R.J. (1998), “Proportional representation and a ‘fair electoral system’ for the United Kingdom”, Journal of Legislative Studies, 4, 128–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnston, R.J., and C.J. Pattie (1997), “Electoral reform without constitutional reform”, The Political Quarterly, 68, 379–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnston R.J., and P.J. Taylor (1985), “People, places and parliaments: a geographical perspective on electoral reform in Great Britain”, The Geographical Journal, 151, 327–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Morris, P. (1996), “Qualified majority voting and power indices: a further response to Johnston”, British Journal of Political Science, 26, 595–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Norton, P. (1997), “The case for first-past-the-post”, Representation, 34, 84–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Plant, L. (1991), “The Plant Report: A working party on electoral reform”, Guardian Studies, 3, London: The Guardian newspaper.Google Scholar
  29. Plant, L. (1993), Report of the Working Party on Electoral Systems, London: Labour Party.Google Scholar
  30. Roberts G.K. (1996), “Neglected aspects of the German electoral system”, Representation, 33, 125–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Riba, C. (1996), “The use of mathematics in political science: a survey of European and American journals”, European Journal of Political Research, 29. 477–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rossiter, D.J., C.J. Pattie, and R.J. Johnston (1996), “New boundaries, old inequalities: the evolution and partisan impact of the Celtic preference in British redistriction”, in: I. Hampsher-Monk, and J. Stanyer (eds.), Contemporary Political Studies, Belfast: Political Studies Association, 1469–1482.Google Scholar
  33. Royal Commission on the Electoral System (1986), Towards a Better Democracy, Wellington: Government Printer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ron J. Johnston
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Geographical SciencesUniversity of BristolBristolEngland

Personalised recommendations