1. We explain the adjustment vote weights using the example of the 2021 Bundestag. The second point discussed is the incomplete compliance of the Sainte-Lague/Schepers method, which dates back to 1832 and is used to apportion the Bundestag, with the mathematical standards of the 21st century. This method results in apportionments that are often not the best ones found by discrete optimization."> 1. We explain the adjustment vote weights using the example of the 2021 Bundestag. The second point discussed is the incomplete compliance of the Sainte-Lague/Schepers method, which dates back to 1832 and is used to apportion the Bundestag, with the mathematical standards of the 21st century. This method results in apportionments that are often not the best ones found by discrete optimization.">
[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/kitwps/153.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Analysis of the 2021 Bundestag elections. 3/4. Tackling the Bundestag growth

Author

Listed:
  • Tanguiane, Andranick S.
Abstract
This is the third of four papers devoted to the 2021 German federal elections continuing our analysis of the 2009, 2013 and 2017 Bundestag elections. Currently, only China has a parliament larger than the German Bundestag, which still grows due to the increasing number of overhang mandates. The unfettered growth of the Bundestag - caused by allotting too many direct mandates to parties that received too few second votes - can be prevented by relaxing the principle of 'one man-one vote' and introducing adjustable vote weights of Bundestag members. Such a practice could make numerous adjustment (leveling) seats unnecessary and the basic 598 Bundestag seats sufficient under most circumstances. For this purpose, the members of the overrepresented parties (because they receive too many direct mandates) should have vote power = 1 and the members of other parties should have adjustment vote weights > 1. We explain the adjustment vote weights using the example of the 2021 Bundestag. The second point discussed is the incomplete compliance of the Sainte-Lague/Schepers method, which dates back to 1832 and is used to apportion the Bundestag, with the mathematical standards of the 21st century. This method results in apportionments that are often not the best ones found by discrete optimization.

Suggested Citation

  • Tanguiane, Andranick S., 2022. "Analysis of the 2021 Bundestag elections. 3/4. Tackling the Bundestag growth," Working Paper Series in Economics 153, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:kitwps:153
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/249330/1/178685869X.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andranik Tangian, 2017. "Policy Representation of a Parliament: The Case of the German Bundestag 2013 Elections," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 151-179, January.
    2. Diego Varela & Javier Prado-Dominguez, 2012. "Negotiating the Lisbon Treaty: Redistribution, Efficiency and Power Indices," Czech Economic Review, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, vol. 6(2), pages 107-124, July.
    3. Mariusz Mazurkiewicz & Jacek W. Mercik, 2005. "Modified Shapley-Shubik power index for parliamentary coalitions," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 15(2), pages 43-52.
    4. Tangian, Andranik S., 2017. "Policy representation by the 2017 Bundestag," Working Paper Series in Economics 108, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    5. Shapley, L. S. & Shubik, Martin, 1954. "A Method for Evaluating the Distribution of Power in a Committee System," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 48(3), pages 787-792, September.
    6. M. L. Balinski & H. P. Young, 1979. "Criteria for Proportional Representation," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 80-95, February.
    7. Andranik Tangian, 2020. "Analytical Theory of Democracy," Studies in Choice and Welfare, Springer, number 978-3-030-39691-6, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tanguiane, Andranick S., 2023. "Apportionment in times of digitalization," Working Paper Series in Economics 161, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    2. Tanguiane, Andranick S., 2022. "Analysis of the 2021 Bundestag elections. 4/4. The third vote application," Working Paper Series in Economics 154, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    3. Tanguiane, Andranick S., 2022. "Analysis of the 2021 Bundestag elections. 2/4. Political spectrum," Working Paper Series in Economics 152, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    4. Jacek W. Mercik, 2007. "Econometric estimation of hidden factors in group decision making – their impacton power index estimation," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 3, pages 121-131.
    5. Tangian, Andranik S., 2018. "Testing the improved third vote during the 2018 election of the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology student parliament," Working Paper Series in Economics 117, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    6. Luca Alfieri & Nino Kokashvili, 2020. "Financial Safety Nets In East Asia And Europe: A Political Economy Assessment," University of Tartu - Faculty of Economics and Business Administration Working Paper Series 121, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, University of Tartu (Estonia).
    7. Deniz Aksoy, 2010. "Who gets what, when, and how revisited: Voting and proposal powers in the allocation of the EU budget," European Union Politics, , vol. 11(2), pages 171-194, June.
    8. Laruelle, Annick & Valenciano, Federico, 2008. "Noncooperative foundations of bargaining power in committees and the Shapley-Shubik index," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 341-353, May.
    9. Leech, Dennis, 2002. "Voting Power In The Governance Of The International Monetary Fund," Economic Research Papers 269354, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    10. Block, Joern H. & Hirschmann, Mirko & Kranz, Tobias & Neuenkirch, Matthias, 2023. "Public family firms and economic inequality across societies," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 19(C).
    11. Dimitrov, Dinko & Haake, Claus-Jochen, 2011. "Coalition formation in simple Games. the semistrict core," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 378, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    12. Monisankar Bishnu & Sonali Roy, 2012. "Hierarchy of players in swap robust voting games," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 38(1), pages 11-22, January.
    13. Borkowski, Agnieszka, 2003. "Machtverteilung Im Ministerrat Nach Dem Vertrag Von Nizza Und Den Konventsvorschlagen In Einer Erweiterten Europaischen Union," IAMO Discussion Papers 14887, Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO).
    14. Zaporozhets, Vera & García-Valiñas, María & Kurz, Sascha, 2016. "Key drivers of EU budget allocation: Does power matter?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 57-70.
    15. Bindseil, Ulrich & Hantke, Cordula, 1997. "The power distribution in decision making among EU member states," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 171-185, February.
    16. Matthew Gould & Matthew D. Rablen, 2013. "Equitable Representation in the Councils of the United Nations: Theory and Application," CEDI Discussion Paper Series 13-07, Centre for Economic Development and Institutions(CEDI), Brunel University.
    17. Sridhar Mandyam & Usha Sridhar, 2017. "DON and Shapley Value for Allocation among Cooperating Agents in a Network: Conditions for Equivalence," Studies in Microeconomics, , vol. 5(2), pages 143-161, December.
    18. Saari, Donald G. & Sieberg, Katri K., 2001. "Some Surprising Properties of Power Indices," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 241-263, August.
    19. Maria Antoinette Silgoner & Jesús Crespo-Cuaresma & Gerhard Reitschuler, 2003. "The Fiscal Smile: The Effectiveness and Limits of Fiscal Stabilizers," IMF Working Papers 2003/182, International Monetary Fund.
    20. Gianfranco Gambarelli & Angelo Uristani, 2009. "Multicameral voting cohesion games," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 17(4), pages 433-460, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Representative democracy; elections; theory of voting; proportional representation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:kitwps:153. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fwkitde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.