IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/matsoc/v59y2010i3p343-348.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of thresholds for power mean-based and other divisor methods of apportionment

Author

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

Abstract

For divisor methods of apportionment with concave up or concave down rounding functions, we prove explicit formulas for the threshold values--the lower and upper bounds for the percentage of population that are necessary and sufficient for a state to receive a particular number of seats. Among the rounding functions with fixed concavity are those based on power means, which include the methods of Adams, Dean, Hill-Huntington, Webster, and Jefferson. The thresholds for Dean's and Hill-Huntington's methods had not been evaluated previously. We use the formulas to analyze the behavior of the thresholds for divisor methods with fixed concavity, and compute and compare threshold values for Hill-Huntington's method (used to apportion the US House of Representatives).

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:matsoc:v:59:y:2010:i:3:p:343-348
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165-4896(10)00006-5
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Gallagher, Michael, 1992. "Comparing Proportional Representation Electoral Systems: Quotas, Thresholds, Paradoxes and Majorities," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(4), pages 469-496, October.
    2. Balinski, Michel & Ramirez, Victoriano, 1999. "Parametric methods of apportionment, rounding and production," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 107-122, March.
    3. Friedrich Pukelsheim & Albert W. Marshall & Ingram Olkin, 2002. "A majorization comparison of apportionment methods in proportional representation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 19(4), pages 885-900.
    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. 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.

    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. Bittó, Virág, 2017. "Az Imperiali és Macau politikai választókörzet-kiosztási módszerek empirikus vizsgálata [Empirical Analysis of the Imperiali and Macau Apportionment Methods]," MPRA Paper 79554, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. José Gutiérrez, 2015. "Majorization comparison of closed list electoral systems through a matrix theorem," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 235(1), pages 807-814, December.
    3. Demange, Gabrielle, 2012. "On party-proportional representation under district distortions," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 181-191.
    4. Laszlo A. Koczy & Peter Biro & Balazs Sziklai, 2017. "US vs. European Apportionment Practices: The Conflict between Monotonicity and Proportionality," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 1716, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    5. Santiago Carbó Valverde & Antonio Palomares Bautista & Victoriano Ramírez González, 2004. "La regulación de los órganos de gobierno de las cajas de ahorros: consideraciones electorales," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 171(4), pages 33-55, december.
    6. Pellicer, Miquel & Wegner, Eva, 2013. "Electoral Rules and Clientelistic Parties: A Regression Discontinuity Approach," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 8(4), pages 339-371, October.
    7. Grimmett, G.R. & Oelbermann, K.-F. & Pukelsheim, F., 2012. "A power-weighted variant of the EU27 Cambridge Compromise," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 136-140.
    8. Laszlo A. Koczy & Balazs Sziklai, 2018. "Bounds on Malapportionment," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 1801, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    9. Kangas, Annika & Laukkanen, Sanna & Kangas, Jyrki, 2006. "Social choice theory and its applications in sustainable forest management--a review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 77-92, November.
    10. Steven J Brams & D Marc Kilgour, 2012. "Narrowing the field in elections: The Next-Two rule," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 24(4), pages 507-525, October.
    11. Brams,S.L. & Kaplan,T.R., 2002. "Dividing the indivisible : procedures for allocating cabinet ministries to political parties in a parliamentary system," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 340, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    12. 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.
    13. Niemeyer, Horst F. & Niemeyer, Alice C., 2008. "Apportionment methods," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 240-253, September.
    14. Miguel Martínez-Panero & Verónica Arredondo & Teresa Peña & Victoriano Ramírez, 2019. "A New Quota Approach to Electoral Disproportionality," Economies, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-17, March.
    15. Ulrich Kohler & Janina Zeh, 2012. "Apportionment methods," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 12(3), pages 375-392, September.
    16. Javier Cembrano & Jos'e Correa & Ulrike Schmidt-Kraepelin & Alexandros Tsigonias-Dimitriadis & Victor Verdugo, 2024. "New Combinatorial Insights for Monotone Apportionment," Papers 2410.23869, arXiv.org.
    17. 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.
    18. Gwizdalla, Tomasz M., 2008. "Gallagher index for sociophysical models," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 387(12), pages 2937-2951.
    19. Siamak F. Shahandashti, 2016. "Electoral Systems Used around the World," Papers 1605.01343, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2016.
    20. Heinrich Lothar & Pukelsheim Friedrich & Schwingenschlögl Udo, 2004. "Sainte-Laguë’s chi-square divergence for the rounding of probabilities and its convergence to a stable law," Statistics & Risk Modeling, De Gruyter, vol. 22(1), pages 43-60, 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:59:y:2010:i:3:p:343-348. 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.