Skip to main content

Comparison of Electoral Systems: Simulative and Game Theoretic Approaches

  • Conference paper
Book cover Mathematics and Democracy

Part of the book series: Studies in Choice and Welfare ((WELFARE))

Abstract

Simulation may be a useful tool to address some basic problems concerning the choice of the electoral system. A case study is analyzed as an example. The utility of including power indices is discussed. A simulation program is illustrated.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
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

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 

  • Bissey, M.E., M. Carini and G. Ortona (2004). “ALEX3: A Simulation Program to Compare Electoral Systems,” Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 7 (electronic journal at http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowler, S., D.M. Farrell and R.T. Pettitt (2005). “Expert Opinion on Electoral Systems: So Which Electoral System is ‘best’?,” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 15, 3–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, N.B. (2003). Evaluating Voting Procedures Using Different Criteria and Computer Simulations, Conference of the European Public Choice Society, Aarhus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J.S. (1971). “Control of Collectivities and the Power of a Collectivity to Act,” in B. Lieberman (Ed.), Social Choice, London: Gordon and Breach, 269–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, J., and E.W. Packel (1978). “A New Index of Power for Simple n-person Games,” International Journal of Game Theory, 7, 113–123.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, D.M. (2001). Electoral Systems-A Comparative Introduction, Basingstoke: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fragnelli, V., G. Monella and G. Ortona (2005). “A Simulative Approach for Evaluating Electoral Systems,” Homo Oeconomicus, 22, 524–549.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, M. (1991). “Proportionality, Disproportionality and Electoral Systems,” Electoral Studies, 10, 33–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gambarelli, G., and R. Biella (1992). “Sistemi elettorali,” Il Politico, 164, 557–588.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gately, D. (1974). “Sharing the Gains from Regional Cooperation: A Game Theoretic Application to Planning Investment in Electric Power,” International Economic Review, 15, 195–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gini, C. (1914). “Sulla misura della concentrazione e della variabilita’ dei caratteri” Atti del Regio Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, 73, 1203–1248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holler, M.J. (1982). “Forming Coalitions and Measuring Voting Power,” Political Studies, 30, 262–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holler, M.J., and E.W. Packel (1983). “Power, Luck and the Right Index,” Zeitschrift für Nationalökonomie (Journal of Economics), 43, 21–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart A. (1999). Patterns of Democracy. Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries, Yale: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, S. III (1984). “A comparison of Efficiency of Multicandidate Electoral Systems,” American Journal of Political Science, 28, 49–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, S. III (1985). “A Statistical Model for Condorcet Efficiency based on Simulation under Spatial Model Assumptions,” Public Choice, 47, 389–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, D.C. (1989). Public Choice III, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortona, G. (1998). “Come funzionano i sistemi elettorali: un confronto sperimentale,” Stato e Mercato, 54: 469–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortona, G. (2002). “Choosing the electoral system: why not simply the best one?,” Department POLIS, Universita’ del Piemonte Orientale, Working Paper 32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortona, G. (2004). “Un nuovo sistema elettorale a due stadi e una sua valutazione mediante simulazione,” Polena, 2, 49–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortona, G. (2006). “Voting on the Electoral System: an Experiment,” Polena, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen, G. (1977). “Values of Games with a Priori Unions,” Lecture Notes in Economic and Mathematical Systems, 141, 76–88.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Shapley, L. S. (1953). “A Value for n-Person Games,” in Contributions to the Theory of Games, Vol II (Annals of Mathematics Studies 28) (Kuhn HW, Tucker AW eds.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 307–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapley, L.S., and M. Shubik (1954). “A Method for Evaluating the Distribution of Power in a Committee System,” American Political Science Review 48, 787–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trinchero, R. (1998). “Sistemi di voto e preferenze individuali: un’analisi comparata con l’uso della simulazione al calcolatore,” Working Paper 9802, Department of Economics, Universita’ di Torino.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer Berlin · Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Fragnelli, V., Ortona, G. (2006). Comparison of Electoral Systems: Simulative and Game Theoretic Approaches. In: Simeone, B., Pukelsheim, F. (eds) Mathematics and Democracy. Studies in Choice and Welfare. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-35605-3_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics