n-person weighted voting games and power indices

216 T . Perlinger Mathematical Social Sciences 40 2000 215 –226 process in a reasonably realistic way. Should, for instance, a coalition that consists of two voters from opposite extremes be as likely as a coalition that consists of two voters who are ideological neighbors? Is it at all reasonable to believe that the former coalition will arise? These questions suggest that in ideological voting situations, all coalitions should not be treated as equally probable to occur. The problem then is: which are the least likely coalitions and how do we restrict them? An interesting approach to this kind of problem is suggested by Edelman 1997. His model of coalition formation is based on the concept of convex sets, and only a certain type of coalitions are allowed to occur. A specific application of the model is when the players are spread across an ideological spectrum, such as the usual left–right ideology scale. The idea is that a coalition is permissible if and only if there are no ideological gaps between members of the coalition; in other words, there can be no non-member who is ideologically in an intermediate position between any two coalition members. Edelman shows that the Shapley-Shubik index very naturally extends to accommodate these restricted games, which henceforth will be referred to as spectrum games. In voting situations modeled by spectrum games, one would expect the player in the median position to be the strongest in terms of voting power, since he is connected to both flanks and thus have more possibilities to form and join coalitions. This is not the case, however, when voting power in spectrum games is measured by the extended Shapley-Shubik index. Somewhat surprisingly, it is instead the players in quartile positions who are the strongest. Only the outer players in the most extreme positions on the ideology scale are weaker than the median player. The purpose of the present paper is to study voting power in spectrum games by combining Edelman’s ideas with those of Berg 1997. To do this, we first introduce the concept of an initiator as the first member of a coalition. Edelman’s model determines implicitly an initiator distribution, which favors or rather dis-favors the player in the median position. Taking the cue from Berg, we then introduce a model for coalition formation, in which each grand coalition is seen as the realization of a sequence of ´ Markov-Polya binary random variables. In this manner, we derive a parametrized family of Shapley-Shubik type indices, and in the process we also obtain a simple and flexible family of initiator distributions. Edelman’s model of voting is a special case, and other special cases have simple and appealing probabilistic interpretations. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. To establish notation, Section 2 gives a brief overview of n-person weighted voting games and voting power indices. The definition of spectrum games, i.e. Edelman’s model regarding allowable coalitions applied to voting games on an ideological spectrum, is given in Section 3 along with some basic results. In this section we also define Edelman’s extension of the Shapley- Shubik index. In Section 4, which is the main part of the paper, we introduce the ´ Markov-Polya index. We discuss properties of the index, and we provide illustrations and interpretations. Section 5, finally, concludes the paper.

2. n-person weighted voting games and power indices

A normalized n-person weighted voting game is a cooperative n-person game in which the players possess a varying number of votes p , . . . , p , and where a coalition 1 n T . Perlinger Mathematical Social Sciences 40 2000 215 –226 217 S is either winning or losing. A coalition is winning if and only if the aggregated votes of the coalition members exceed a certain quota q. Such a game is represented by the notation [q; p , . . . , p ] and the characteristic function is 1 n 1 if O p q i ;i [S v S 5 . 1 5 if O p , q i ;i [S When the influence of the individual players is measured in these games, it is common to use some power index. A power index determines the players’ power mainly on the basis of so called swing sets. A swing set for player i is a winning coalition where i is an influential member, i.e. by defecting he can turn the coalition over into a losing one. For such a coalition we thus have v S 2 vS\ hij 5 1, 2 and we say that the player i is pivotal in the coalition S. The Shapley-Shubik index is of particular interest here. This index focuses on permutations on the set of players vote sequences. A permutation is an arranged row consisting of all the n players, which could be interpreted as the way in which the grand coalition i.e. the coalition consisting of all the players is coming into being. This interpretation means that player i is expected to join the coalition formed by the players in front of him in the row. The Shapley-Shubik index then registers if player i is pivotal in this coalition. There are n such arrangements, but many of them will give the same value because the value of a coalition does not depend on the particular order of the coalition forming process. Taking account of this, the Shapley-Shubik index for the game v is given by s 2 1n 2 s ]]]]] w [v] 5 O [vS 2 vS\ hij], i [ N. 3 i n S N,i [S where uSu 5 s and N 5 h1,2, . . . , nj. This means that in terms of the Shapley-Shubik index, it is better for a player to hold the balance of power in small coalitions which indicates that the player is strong, rather than being pivotal in coalitions with approximately half of the players which the weaker players are capable of also. In each permutation there is exactly one player who is pivotal, which guarantees that the sum of the players’ Shapley-Shubik indices Eq. 3 equals 1, i.e. n O w [v] 5 1. 4 i k 51 The Shapley-Shubik index Eq. 3 can be given a probabilistic interpretation. If all the n permutations are regarded as equally probable, Eq. 3 represents the expected number of times player i will be in a pivotal position. Henceforth, this interpretation will be used. For an axiomatic definition of the Shapley-Shubik index Eq. 3, see, e.g., Owen 1995. 218 T . Perlinger Mathematical Social Sciences 40 2000 215 –226

3. Spectrum games