Posted on 06/18/2007 2:47:24 AM PDT by Lukasz
What is a fair voting system for the European Union? It looks as though, thanks to Poland, European leaders will be forced to debate this difficult question at their summit this week.
Since the simplified draft treaty is substantively identical to the old and rejected constitution - minus some cosmetics - the voting system proposed is going to be the same one: passage of legislation requires a coalition of countries representing at least 55 per cent of the member states and 65 per cent of the population. The Poles have threatened a veto unless the second of those two numbers is based on the square root of the population size - to reduce Germany's influence. It sounds arbitrary, but the Poles have a point. Mathematics is on the side of Poland.
To an uninitiated observer, this does not appear immediately obvious. Does it not seem fair that the voting power of a country in an international organisation should be proportional to its population size? The answer is no. In fact, it is totally unfair. The reason is that effective voting power in multi-nation settings such as the EU depends not on voting size but on the ability to form winning coalitions. Large countries are better placed than their relative population size would suggest.
The original, six-member Community is a good example of this counter-intuitive idea. Germany, France and Italy each had four votes in the council of ministers, the Netherlands and Belgium had two and Luxembourg one vote. Germany then had more than 100 times the population of Luxembourg, yet only four times the number of votes.
Intuition might suggest that tiny Luxembourg was surely over-represented. In truth, the opposite was the case. The threshold for a majority was set at 12 votes. Since every member except Luxembourg had an even number of votes, Luxembourg was never in a position to cast a make-or-break vote. Despite being numerically over-represented, Luxembourg in effect had zero voting power. That would have been different if, for example, an odd number had been chosen as the threshold.
So how do you measure effective voting power? Lionel Penrose, the British mathematician and psychiatrist who developed a theory of voting power in the 1940s, concluded that votes in international organisations should be based on the square root of the population. This is where the Poles got their idea. In the 1960s, John Banzhaf, a US attorney, established an index to measure a country's voting power. There are two versions of the Banzhaf index. The absolute Banzhaf index measures the ability of a country to cast the decisive vote in a winning coalition as a proportion of all coalitions in which that country takes part. In the case of the pre-1973 EU, the absolute Banzhaf index for Luxembourg was precisely zero. For Germany it was 24 per cent. Germany, not Luxembourg, was over-represented.
What about the EU today? With 27 members, there are a total of 133m possible coalitions. The economists Richard Baldwin and Mika Widgrén have calculated the Banzhaf indices for each member state, both under the current regime, established by the treaty of Nice and in force since 2004, and the constitution*. The results clearly support the Polish case. Germany's absolute Banzhaf index shoots up from about 5 per cent to more than 15 per cent (it would have gone up to 30 per cent under the original draft). The trouble is that everyone's absolute Banzhaf index also goes up, including Poland's. How could that be?
The reason is that the constitution dramatically improves the probability of legislation being passed. Mathematically, the passage probability can be defined as the ratio of "winning" coalitions to all coalitions. In the 15-member EU, this ratio was 8 per cent (this means that 8 per cent of all possible coalitions produce a Yes vote). Under the Nice rules it has fallen to 3 per cent and will approach zero as the EU expands further. This is why the present voting system needs to be fixed.
The constitutional treaty raises this ratio to 13 per cent. But as the overall passage probability rises, so does a country's ability to cast a pivotal vote. This explains why the absolute Banzhaf index rises for everybody, including Poland. The Polish problem is that Germany's influence would be enormous in relative terms.
Is Poland's square root solution the only alternative? Of course not. EU leaders could, for example, raise the threshold for population size and number of countries from their 55 and 65 per cent respectively or introduce some complicated new formula - perhaps with a square root in it. There is a quite a bit a leeway left without creating Nice-style gridlock. Professors Baldwin and Widgrén propose another simple and effective solution: drop the voting rules of
the constitution and just repair the Nice rules by reducing some of the high thresholds.
The Poles have put their finger on an important issue, though their own answer is not as compelling as they think. If and when EU leaders set out to amend the rules, they should heed the lessons of the past. Any new system needs to fulfil two parallel goals: it needs to make the voting system more effective and it needs to be fair. The Nice system is fair and ineffective. The constitution is effective but unfair.
If they get this wrong again, they will be back at the negotiating table not too long from now. But if they get it right, they will have managed to create the one and only substantive change from the original treaty.
” The Polish problem is that Germany’s influence would be enormous in relative terms. “
And this is a problem because ?
Ok, I have to go get more coffee, and maybe read this again.
Some things done with maths really surprise me.
Like the time my boss used a markov process to predict billable hours...
Exactly. They're not likely to create a successful union based in such large measure on anti-Americanism.
True principles work.
Neighboring EU countries are not, and will never be, nearly as much alike as are US states. This remains true even with the bitterest political and demographic balkanization in America. There is only one official language, only two functional languages, in the USA. Imagine if we had to deal with a distinct language and culture for each state. That the EU “works” in any sense is rather bemusing.
It’s not the question wether we like or dislike the poles. Gerhard Schröder did the wrong (populistic) thing when he sealed the borders for cheap polish labour.
This time the question is - why can’t Kaszinsky win some distance from his anti-german resentiments ?
And:
Why should we put so much weight on a relatively instable and new partner like poland ?
Wouldn’t it be much better to give this high potential the time to grow it needs ? Imagine K. overdoes his anti german emotional demands. That could mean the new formation of a core europe without poland.
On the other hand the simple and basic democratic approach allready sets poland in a very heavy position since it is a large country with many people.
It’s easy to see the high influence of poland in the EU - all it needs is a little more diplomatic skills of the leadership.
but this builds certain capabilities that come in handy while globalizing our economy.
German proposal highly reduce Polish influence and this is the reason why we might veto all this treaty. If German media spin this only to anti-German sentiment, this rather not our problem. The question is not as you wrote that why Germany should give Poland as much influence, because we already have it. This is Germany the one which demand changes.
I dint’ write that germany should or shouldn’t give poland more influence.
The influence of Poland is not deminished by the european plans to give everybody a fair and equal vote.
The oposite is true. While up to now highly populated countries like poland and germany are set back the new system would favour them.
The biggest misfavour poland has in the moment is kazynsiky himself. He’s an anti - diplomate. Violent, provoking, demagogic - you can’t make progress with a failure like him.
You are in strong denial.
No - it’s a debate.
Why is it unacceptable to give a germans vote the same weight as a polish one ?
Because the many germans had more political weight then the fewer poles ?
Well yes - and that is not desirable why ?
Since when is germany a foe of poland ?
Is it impossible to come to an agreement with german politics ?
Is there a risk that germans would decide against polish interests just to do poland harm ?
And in the opposite case ?
Today Kaszinsky dragged out the good ol’ WWII club. How can he make any clearer that his stance is not connected with polands or european well-beeing but with anti- german attitude ?
We need more understanding and togetherness in europe. That’s what Angela Merkel stands for and that’s what highly motivated and capable polish students throughout europes universities stand for.
What does K. stand for ?
This is just German propaganda for external use. If your government would be so European why would they so heroically fight for votes for GERMANS. After all this should not be important at all, we are all Europeans! So Kaczynski stand for exactly the same what Merkel stands.
This is consequence of German proposal, that we simplycannot agree.
Thank you for your graph it explains nicely why the european proposal is fair.
Germany gains only 5% of weight while the vote of the germans has been totaly underrepresented in the treaty of nice.
We have worked contructively all these years allthough our politcial weight in the EU was that of Luxemburg. Follow our example - it should be much easier for you then it was for us.
... and I cannot see Angela Merkel playing an anti polish campaign card so I guess she stands for constructive and honourable cooperation between our countries. While K. A well - you just stand in front of him because I am german. If I was an australian you would admit he’s not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
... Never mind . K. will get his debate - will not get the square root - will get something else instead - and in the end england will spoil a consensual decision.
If I was an australian you would admit he’s not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Prime Minister or President?
the prime minister...
I take it, that the president is a little bit more benign in his style.
Maybe this is because of his function and not because of his attitude.
And no, I am not ‘spinning’ the german side. I am really open for math and points of view. I understand the function of the square root law. But I also understand it’s downsides.
But I am not open to account the polish war losses during WWII in the debate about european weighting and so every european (and in secrecy every pole) will say.
So I understand the background - but I don’t have any understanding for this prime torpedo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.