Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-27T18:15:04.244Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

On Power Indices and Reading Papers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2009

Extract

Peter Morriss's attack on R. J. Johnston's Note takes some side-swipes at us. We are allegedly ‘not quite up to par’, because (i) we are said to advocate the Banzhaf index; (ii) we are accused of ignoring a simpler route to our conclusion.

Type
Notes and Comments
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Morriss, P., “Qualified Majority Voting and Power Indices', this issue, pp. 595–7; R. J. Johnston, ‘The Conflict over Qualified Voting in the European Union Council of Ministers: An Analysis of the UK Negotiating Stance Using Power Indices’, British Journal of Political Science, 25 (1995), 245–54Google Scholar; Garrett, G. M., McLean, I. and Machover, M., ‘Power, Power Indices and Blocking Power: A Comment’, British Journal of Political Science, 25 (1995), 563–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Monroe, B. L., ‘Inherent Distortions of the Electoral College: Implications for 1992 and Beyond’ (paper presented at Citadel Symposium on Southern Politics, Charleston, 1992)Google Scholar, has shown how the US Electoral College distorts and sometimes destroys the voting value of states. His index, generalizing the Penrose conception of voting value, axiomatizes the arguments in Morriss, P., Power: A Philosophical Analysis (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1987), chap. 24.Google Scholar

3 Morriss, , ‘Qualified Majority Voting’, p. 597.Google Scholar

4 Garrett, et al. , ‘Power, Power Indices and Blocking Power’, p. 567.Google Scholar