Skip to main content

Modified Power Indices for Indirect Voting

  • Chapter

Abstract

The Electoral College remains a controversial feature of U.S. political decision-making. After most U.S. presidential elections, there are calls for passage of a constitutional amendment to either abolish it or to ‘reform’ it substantially. There are numerous complaints about the Electoral College, of which the most important is the potential for the winner of the Electoral College majority to be a popular vote loser. Consider three assertions that often surface in the debates about the political impact of the Electoral College.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Banzhaf, J.F. (1965) Weighted Voting Doesn’t Work: A Mathematical Analysis, Rutgers Law Review 19: 317–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brams, S.J. and Davis, M. (1974) The 3/2ths Rule in Presidential Campaigning, American Political Science Review 68: 113–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chamberlain, G. and Rothschild, M. (1981) A Note on the Probability of Casting a Decisive Vote, Journal of Economic Theory 25: 152–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, G.W. (1997) Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral Systems, Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duverger, M. (1959) Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State, John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, G.C. (2004) Why the Electoral College is Bad for America, Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felsenthal, D.S. and Machover, M. (1998)The Measurement of Voting Power. Theory and Practice, Problems and Paradoxes, Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaines, B. (1999). Duverger’s Law and the Meaning of Canadian Exceptionalism, Comparative Political Studies 32: 835–861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelman, A. Katz, J. and Bafumi, J. (2004) Standard Voting Power Indexes Do Not Work: An Empirical Analysis, British Journal of Political Science 34: 657–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Good, I.J. and Meyer, L.S. (1975) Estimating the Efficacy of a Vote, Behavioral Science 20: 25–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grofman, B., Koetzle, W. and Brunell, T. (1997) An Integrated Perspective on the Three Potential Sources of Partisan Bias: Malapportionment, Turnout Differences, and the Geographic Distribution of Party Vote Shares, Electoral Studies 16: 457–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groseclose, T. and Snyder, J.M. (2000) Vote Buying, Supermajorities, and Flooded Coalitions, American Political Science Review 94: 683–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimberling, W.C. (2004) The Electoral College, U.S. Federal Election Commission, Office of Election Administration.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madison, J. (1823) ‘Letter to John Hay, August 23, 1823’, in Max Farrand (ed.) The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (rev. ed.) vol. 3, Yale University Press (1966).

    Google Scholar 

  • Natapoff, A. (2004) ‘The Electoral College’, Presentation to the Colloquium Series of the Institute for Mathematical Behavioral Sciences, University of California, Irvine, October 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen, G. (1972) Multilinear Extensions of Games, Management Science 18: 64–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, G. (1975) Evaluation of a Presidential Election Game, American Political Science Review 69: 947–953.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, G. (1995) Game Theory, Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapley, L.S. Mann, I. (1962) Values of Large Games, VI: Evaluating the Electoral College Exactly, RM-3158-PR. The RAND Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, D. (2003) A Simple Game: Uncovering Campaign Effects in the 2000 Presidential Election. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Political Science, University of Texas, Austin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tufte, E. (1973) The Relationship between Seats and Votes in Two-Party Systems, American Political Science Review 67: 540–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Owen, G., Lindner, I., Grofman, B. (2008). Modified Power Indices for Indirect Voting. In: Braham, M., Steffen, F. (eds) Power, Freedom, and Voting. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73382-9_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics