Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 0812.4114

Invariably Suboptimal - An attempt to improve the voting rules of Treaties of Nice and Lisbon

Werner Kirsch·Jessica Langner
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We investigate the voting rules in the Council of the European Union. It is known that the current system, according to the Treaty of Nice, and the voting system proposed in the Lisbon treaty both strongly deviate from the square root law by Penrose. This is known to be the ideal voting rule under certain assumptions. In 2004 Slomczynski and Zyczkowski designed a voting system, now known as the Jagiellonian Compromise. It satisfies the square root law with very high accuracy. Each member state in this system obtains a voting weight proportional to the square root of the population. Additionally the quota is fixed in such a way that the voting power of each country is also proportional to the square root of the population. In this paper we investigate to which extent a change of the quota in the Treaty of Nice and the Treaty of Lisbon may bring the voting power closer to the ideal square root distribution. Our computations show that even with optimal quota both systems are way off the ideal power distribution.

Explore related subjects

math.HO

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Werner Kirsch, Jessica Langner. 2009-03-09. Invariably Suboptimal - An attempt to improve the voting rules of Treaties of Nice and Lisbon. https://arxiv.org/abs/0812.4114

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Come for the vibe, stay for the math

This article describes our experiences in mathematical outreach over the past decade. We talk about specific activities, but also general principles that we've learned along the way.

math.HO↗
arXiv2026

Graduate Mathematics in the Age of AI: Forming Mathematicians for Original, Independent, and Responsible Inquiry

Artificial intelligence can increasingly produce plausible, sophisticated mathematical material faster than a developing graduate student can understand or verify it. A sophisticated result or paper draft therefore becomes weaker evidence of the student's own mathematical development. This creates a formation gap between output and personal capacity, and a trust gap between a convincing argument and warranted acceptance. The formation gap can persist even when the student understands the output: understanding a supplied argument does not by itself establish the capacity to initiate and direct inquiry. These gaps are not the whole story. AI can also help students explore examples, compare approaches, enter unfamiliar areas, and undertake ambitious research. The task is to design an apprenticeship that realizes these possibilities while developing substantive mathematical command. The central purpose of a mathematics PhD is to form mathematicians capable of original, independent, and responsible inquiry, including inquiry conducted with AI. This document develops that objective through four connected capacities: competence, judgment, independence, and responsibility. It distinguishes a work's contribution to mathematics from the evidence it provides of a student's formation; explains how a known answer can initiate rather than end creative inquiry; and proposes changes in learning activities, assessment, doctoral originality, advising, and institutional support. Purposeful independent work and ambitious AI-assisted research are complementary parts of the model. Its recommendations include proportionate contribution statements, recognition of advising costs, and staged pilots evaluating both mathematical ability and effective human--AI collaboration. The aim is not to preserve an inherited sequence of training, but to improve mathematical formation as mathematical practice changes.

math.HO↗