The Banzhaf index of power in a voting situation depends on the number of ways in which each voter can effect a "swing" in the outcome. It is comparable--but not actually equivalent--to the better-known Shapley-Shubik index, which depends on the number of alignments or "orders of support" in which each voter is pivotal. This paper investigates some properties of the Banzhaf index, the main topics being its derivation from axioms and its behavior in weighted-voting models when the number of small voters tends to infinity. These matters have previously been studied from the Shapley-Shubik viewpoint, but the present work reveals some striking differences between the two indexes. The paper also attempts to promote better communication and less duplication of mathematical effort in this field by identifying and describing several other theories, formally equivalent to Banzhaf's, that are found in fields ranging from sociology to electrical engineering. An extensive bibliography is provided.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation Paper series. The paper was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1948 to 2003 that captured speeches, memorials, and derivative research, usually prepared on authors' own time and meant to be the scholarly or scientific contribution of individual authors to their professional fields. Papers were less formal than reports and did not require rigorous peer review.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.