Next Article in Journal
Screening Teams of Moral and Altruistic Agents
Next Article in Special Issue
On Weights and Quotas for Weighted Majority Voting Games
Previous Article in Journal
Dynamic Model of Collaboration in Multi-Agent System Based on Evolutionary Game Theory
Previous Article in Special Issue
Simple Voting Games and Cartel Damage Proportioning
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

The Number of Parties and Decision-Making in Legislatures

Games 2021, 12(4), 76; https://doi.org/10.3390/g12040076
by Marina Bannikova 1,†, Artyom Jelnov 2,*,† and Pavel Jelnov 3,†
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Games 2021, 12(4), 76; https://doi.org/10.3390/g12040076
Submission received: 1 August 2021 / Revised: 3 October 2021 / Accepted: 6 October 2021 / Published: 12 October 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Weighted Majority Voting Games)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

  1. I suggest the authors to supplement more recent related papers, such as Britto, Diogo and Fiorin, Stefano(2020), Corruption and Legislature Size: Evidence from Brazil. Available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2020.101940. Also the authors maybe go through the paper “Policymaking and Number of Parties in Legislatures” written by B Nyblade and A O’Mahony,

 

  1. I recommend the authors to check their writing, avoiding typos. For example, “As we show, ease of manipulation of the legislature decision decreases with the number of parties”(p.8) in the “Final remarks”, compared with the context in the Abstract, which is “increases”, not “decreases”.

 

  1. The authors say that they combine ease of manipulation with mispresentation. Also they say that electoral threshold may lead to mispresentation of voters on p.5, which could be explained better in the model.

 

  1. On p.7, I am not clear about the result “these models should not be sensitive to changes in the number of seats, in lambda and lambda*, since results depend on fraction of seats/popular votes of each party out of a total number of seats/popular votes.” Lambda and lambda* could be more specific.  

Author Response

Please see attachment/

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

see attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Please, look at the attached report.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We fixed points 1. (b) and (c). As for other points, we respect reviewer’s opinion, but it does not contain practical suggestions.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

See attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop