July 16, 2004
REICH RISING:
The EU constitution is 'unfair', according to game theorists: Independent analysis reveals that complex voting doesn't add up (Roger Highfield, 14/07/2004, Daily Telegraph)
The European Constitution is unscientific, will not achieve the objective of "one person one vote", and will give Germany undue influence, according to a new analysis.As Britain prepares a referendum on the new constitution, the study by scientists says that there are flaws in the most controversial aspect, the voting rules at the EU Council of Ministers.
Germany will gain the most voting power by far under the new constitution, giving it 37 per cent more clout than the UK, when they will have equal influence when the Treaty of Nice is introduced fully later this year.
Spain and Poland, who have held up the constitution in previous negotiations, will be the biggest losers.
The claims, in the journal Physics World, are made by Dr Karol Zyczkowski, a physicist, and Dr Wojciech Slomczynski, a mathematician, both from the Jagiellonian University in Krakow, and are backed by about 50 scientists across Europe.
Overall, the constitution favours the biggest and smallest states in a systematic way. "The medium-sized states are losers," said Dr Slomczynski.
"The vote of a citizen in one country ought to be the same as for any other member state and this is strongly violated both in the voting system of the Treaty of Nice and in the constitution."
That last bit's nonsense, but it is helpful to know that even if one man one vote is their aim they muffed it. Posted by Orrin Judd at July 16, 2004 7:39 AM
I understand it can be mathematically proven that there is no voting system which never produces inconsistant results; eg, in a straight majority system like the US adding a 3rd candidate on side B who steals a few voters from side A can actually cause B to lose.
The only interesting thing about this story is that it demonstrates the Poles are cranky about the EU.
Posted by: mike earl at July 16, 2004 9:58 AMYeah! When has what's good for the Krauts ever been bad for the Poles?
Posted by: oj at July 16, 2004 10:03 AMKenneth Arrow, if you accept his five axioms for voting systems.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at July 16, 2004 11:58 AMMr. Ortega;
No, actually not. Arrow's Theorem is that there are five properties (not axioms) that almost everyone considers desirable in an election system, but they are mutually inconsistent - i.e., you can't have all of them at the same time. It has nothing to do with accepting those properties. In fact, in real life you must reject at least one in order to have an implementable voting procedure.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at July 16, 2004 4:10 PMWell, isn't that just so convenient!!?? Since there cannot be a "fair" voting system, Brussels can just dispense with votes altogether. Anyway, those voters are always voting the wrong way all the time.
Posted by: ray at July 16, 2004 9:15 PM