Coalition formation in weighted simple-majority games under proportional payoff allocation rules

2009 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 217-222 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhi-Gang Cao ◽  
Xiao-Guang Yang
1973 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valentine Herman ◽  
John Pope

All the theories of coalition formation known to us incorporate an assumption (or a set of assumptions which imply) that coalitions which are formed must at least be ‘winning’. 1 In the present context, a coalition is said to be winning if the sum of the seats held by its members is at least a simple majority of all the seats in the parliament. Most of these theories were intended to apply to government coalitions: indeed, several of them were specifically designed for this situation. Yet out of the total of 207 governments which have formed in twelve western democracies since the war, 2 seventy-four of them have not been winning.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriele Canna ◽  
Francesca Centrone ◽  
Emanuela Rosazza Gianin

Author(s):  
Amnon Rapoport ◽  
James P. Kahan ◽  
Sandra G. Funk ◽  
Abraham D. Horowitz
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Paul Chaisty ◽  
Nic Cheeseman ◽  
Timothy J. Power

This chapter summarizes the main parameters of coalitional presidentialism and the key concepts, definitions, explanatory frameworks, indicators, and propositions. It summarizes our understanding of coalitional presidentialism; the distinction between coalition formation and maintenance; the definition of coalitions; the multidimensional understanding of coalition management (the ‘presidential toolbox’); and an analytical framework that emphasizes the motivation of presidents to achieve cost minimization under constraints determined by system-level, coalition-level, and conjunctural factors. It also summarizes our main empirical findings: (1) the characteristics of presidential tools, (2) the substantive patterns of their deployment, (3) the factors that shape the costs of using these tools, (4) the actual (observed) costs of using them, and (5) the potential for imperfect substitutability of these tools. Finally, it concludes with some reflections on the current state of the research on comparative presidentialism.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document