Asymptotic bias of some election methods

DOI10.1007/S10479-012-1141-2zbMATH Open1303.91099OpenAlexW2059936331MaRDI QIDQ744672FDOQ744672

Authors: Svante Janson 

Publication date: 26 September 2014

Published in: Annals of Operations Research (Search for Journal in Brave)

Abstract: Consider an election where N seats are distributed among parties with proportions p_1,...,p_m of the votes. We study, for the common divisor and quota methods, the asymptotic distribution, and in particular the mean, of the seat excess of a party, i.e. the difference between the number of seats given to the party and the (real) number Np_i that yields exact proportionality. Our approach is to keep p_1,...,p_m fixed and let N tend to infinity, with N random in a suitable way. In particular, we give formulas showing the bias favouring large or small parties for the different election methods.

Full work available at URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.6369

Recommendations

• Asymptotic seat bias formulas
• Seat biases of apportionment methods under general distributional assumptions
• Asymptotic equivalence of seat bias models
• Seat allocation distributions and seat biases of stationary apportionment methods for proportional representation
• Seat excess variances of apportionment methods for proportional representation

zbMATH Keywords

biasapparentementsdivisor methodsprobability of violating quotaproportional election methodsquota methods

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

History, political science (91F10) Resource and cost allocation (including fair division, apportionment, etc.) (91B32)

Cites Work

• Title not available (Why is that?)
• Title not available (Why is that?)
• Title not available (Why is that?)
• Probability: A Graduate Course
• Divisor methods for proportional representation systems: an optimization approach to vector and matrix apportionment problems
• Sainte-Laguë’s chi-square divergence for the rounding of probabilities and its convergence to a stable law
• On stationary multiplier methods for the rounding of probabilities and the limiting law of the Sainte-Laguë divergence
• European apportionment via the Cambridge compromise
• Asymptotic seat bias formulas
• Title not available (Why is that?)
• Seat excess variances of apportionment methods for proportional representation
• Seat biases of apportionment methods under general distributional assumptions
• The probability of the Alabama paradox
• Title not available (Why is that?)
• Seat allocation distributions and seat biases of stationary apportionment methods for proportional representation
• Goodness-of-fit criteria for the Adams and Jefferson rounding methods and their limiting laws
• Apportionment methods

Cited In (15)

• Collective bias models in two-tier voting systems and the democracy deficit
• European apportionment via the Cambridge compromise
• Alliance incentives under the D'Hondt method
• Webster sequences, apportionment problems, and just-in-time sequencing
• Asymptotic seat bias formulas
• Asymptotic equivalence of seat bias models
• Simulation models to support the preliminary electoral results program for the Mexican electoral institute
• The probability of the Alabama paradox
• Targeted testing for bias in order assignment, with an application to Texas election ballots
• Measuring nearly single-peakedness of an electorate: some new insights
• Seat excess variances of apportionment methods for proportional representation
• Seat biases of apportionment methods under general distributional assumptions
• A spatial model of the relationship between seats and votes
• A piecewise contractive dynamical system and Phragmèn's election method
• The variance of the discrepancy distribution of rounding procedures, and sums of uniform random variables

This page was built for publication: Asymptotic bias of some election methods

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q744672)