2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.geb.2018.03.014
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The conditional Shapley–Shubik measure for ternary voting games

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…6 However, this is an artifact for j = 2 and for j > 2 different probabilities for the input levels, as well as more complicated probability distributions on vote vectors, lead to different results in the roll call model. The case (j, k) = (3, 2) was studied in more detail in [14], where the authors defined a conditional Shapley-Shubik index given some fixed probability of the voters to abstain.…”
Section: The Roll Call Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…6 However, this is an artifact for j = 2 and for j > 2 different probabilities for the input levels, as well as more complicated probability distributions on vote vectors, lead to different results in the roll call model. The case (j, k) = (3, 2) was studied in more detail in [14], where the authors defined a conditional Shapley-Shubik index given some fixed probability of the voters to abstain.…”
Section: The Roll Call Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This changes if voters have at least a third option. So given some probability that voters do not abstain, Friedman and Parker consider a conditional Shapley-Shubik power index for (3,2) simple games [14]. For general (j, k) simple games a Shapley-Shubik power index was introduced in [9].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, also other variants have been introduced in the literature, see e.g. [2,8,10]. Here, we will only consider the variant from [5].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Using (8), one gets Φ a (u b ) = (0, 1, 0, • • • , 0). It then follows from equations (15) and (16) that Φ a does not satisfy (AC).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The proof for (C) and (L) goes along the same lines as the proof of Proposition 3.1. Also the generalization of the power index to a parametric class can be done just as the one for (j, k) simple games in Equation(8).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%