IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/matsoc/v108y2020icp122-137.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

New quota-based apportionment methods: The allocation of delegates in the Republican Presidential Primary

Author

Listed:
  • Jones, Michael A.
  • McCune, David
  • Wilson, Jennifer M.

Abstract

We survey the apportionment methods used by the Republican Party in their 2012 and 2016 state presidential primaries, with a focus on the seven methods that are proportional. All of the proportional methods are quota-based, and all but one are new (or at least previously unstudied). After comparing the apportionment methods for three candidates using simplicial geometry, we evaluate how they differ in bias toward the top and bottom vote-getting candidates. We also compare the methods by how they distinguish among candidates in close elections. We use the bias comparisons to suggest which methods should be used at different junctures in the primary season. We discuss how these new methods were implemented in practice and summarize how successful these methods were in making the Republican delegate process more proportional.

Suggested Citation

  • Jones, Michael A. & McCune, David & Wilson, Jennifer M., 2020. "New quota-based apportionment methods: The allocation of delegates in the Republican Presidential Primary," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 122-137.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:matsoc:v:108:y:2020:i:c:p:122-137
    DOI: 10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2020.05.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165489620300469
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2020.05.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jones, Michael A. & Wilson, Jennifer M., 2010. "Evaluation of thresholds for power mean-based and other divisor methods of apportionment," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 343-348, May.
    2. Michael A. Jones & David McCune & Jennifer Wilson, 2019. "The elimination paradox: apportionment in the Democratic Party," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 178(1), pages 53-65, January.
    3. Mathias Drton & Udo Schwingenschlögl, 2005. "Asymptotic seat bias formulas," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 62(1), pages 23-31, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zéphirin Nganmeni & Roland Pongou & Bertrand Tchantcho & Jean‐Baptiste Tondji, 2022. "Vaccine and inclusion," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 24(5), pages 1101-1123, October.
      • Zéphirin Nganmeni & Roland Pongou & Bertrand Tchantcho & Jean‐baptiste Tondji, 2022. "Vaccine and inclusion," Post-Print hal-04257703, HAL.
      • Zéphirin Nganmeni & Roland Pongou & Bertrand Tchantcho & Jean-Baptiste Tondji, 2022. "Vaccine and Inclusion," Working Papers 2202E Classification-C62,, University of Ottawa, Department of Economics.
    2. Amirhosein Bodaghi & Jonathan J. H. Zhu, 2024. "A big data analysis of the adoption of quoting encouragement policy on Twitter during the 2020 U.S. presidential election," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 1861-1893, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Udo Schwingenschlögl, 2008. "Asymptotic Equivalence of Seat Bias Models," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 49(2), pages 191-200, April.
    2. Schwingenschlögl, Udo & Drton, Mathias, 2006. "Seat excess variances of apportionment methods for proportional representation," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 76(16), pages 1723-1730, October.
    3. Schwingenschlögl, Udo, 2007. "Probabilities of majority and minority violation in proportional representation," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 77(17), pages 1690-1695, November.
    4. David McCune, 2023. "The Many Apportionment Paradoxes of the 2020 Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucuses," The Mathematical Intelligencer, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 55-63, March.
    5. Luc Lauwers & Tom Van Puyenbroeck, 2006. "The Hamilton Apportionment Method Is Between the Adams Method and the Jefferson Method," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 390-397, May.
    6. Svante Janson, 2014. "Asymptotic bias of some election methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 215(1), pages 89-136, April.
    7. Balázs R Sziklai & Károly Héberger, 2020. "Apportionment and districting by Sum of Ranking Differences," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-20, March.
    8. Heinrich Lothar & Pukelsheim Friedrich & Schwingenschlögl Udo, 2005. "On stationary multiplier methods for the rounding of probabilities and the limiting law of the Sainte-Laguë divergence," Statistics & Risk Modeling, De Gruyter, vol. 23(2), pages 117-129, February.
    9. Słomczyński, Wojciech & Życzkowski, Karol, 2012. "Mathematical aspects of degressive proportionality," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 94-101.
    10. Jarosław Flis & Wojciech Słomczyński & Dariusz Stolicki, 2020. "Pot and ladle: a formula for estimating the distribution of seats under the Jefferson–D’Hondt method," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 182(1), pages 201-227, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:matsoc:v:108:y:2020:i:c:p:122-137. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505565 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.