Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Weighted Majority Game

A weighted majority game is a simple game in which each player can be assigned some numerical weight, and a numerical quota can be fixed, such that a coalition is winning if and only if the total weight of its members equals or exceeds the quota. The concept is useful for analyzing how voting power is shared among members of an assembly on the basis of possible coalitions that may be formed between them. These members (or players) could be shareholders, representatives of political parties or countries, and so on, each one assigned a certain weight (in terms of shares, votes, seats, etc.). A fundamental finding is that voting power in general is not proportional to voting weight. The formal concept of a weighted majority game goes back to the key book on game theory by John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern in 1944.

Let N ={1, 2,…, n} be the set of members of an assembly. Each member i is assigned a non negative weight wi. Let q be the “majority quota” that defines a winning coalition—that is, any coalition S with total weight of q or greater is authorized to take action, for example, make a collective decision, enact a law, and so on. A weighted majority game is defined by these two elements (though sometimes additional information may be taken into consideration, such as a priori unions and different probabilities of coalition formation). In its basic form, a weighted majority game is defined by the formula [q, w] = [q; w1,…, wn]. Let us call the total weight of coalition S wS. The quota q cannot exceed the total weight wN, because in this case no decision can be made, and normally it cannot equal or fall below wN/2. (If q £wN/2, the game is said to be improper.) If q = wN, we have a unanimity game, inasmuch as any decision needs the approval of all assembly members. If a simple majority (i.e., anything greater than wN/2) is sufficient, we have a simple majority game.

An Example

Consider a parliament with 100 seats distributed as follows: 20 to party A, 30 to party B, and 50 to party C, so wA=20, wB=30, wC= 50, wN=100. Each decision needs 51 votes (the quota), so no party can decide on its own. The winning coalitions are {A, C}, {B, C}, and {A, B, C}.

A player is critical for a coalition if that coalition is winning but becomes losing if the player leaves, and each such coalition is called a swing for the player. In the present example, party A is critical for one coalition ({A, C}), party B is critical for one coalition ({B, C}), while party C is critical for three coalitions ({A, C}, {B, C}, and {A, B, C}). The normalized Banzhaf index credits voting power among the parties in proportion to the number of coalitions for which they are critical: their number of swings. In this case it assigns 1/5 to A and B, and 3/5 to C. (There are other power indices, based on other axiomatic grounds and/or behavioral models, that may assign different distributions of power to the players.) Thus parties A and B have equal voting power, even though B has more seats, and C has three times the voting power than A and B, even though its seat advantage is considerably less. If the majority quota q were 75, the winning coalitions would be {B, C} and {A, B, C}. Party A becomes a dummy, while parties B and C now have equal power. The normalized Banzhaf index is therefore 0 for A, 1/2 for B, and 1/2 for C. Thus it is apparent that relative voting power depends not only on the distribution of weights but also on the decision rule reflected in the quota q.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading