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.
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
Cites work
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 4216749 (Why is no real title available?)
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 5359727 (Why is no real title available?)
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3920152 (Why is no real title available?)
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 4000257 (Why is no real title available?)
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3274494 (Why is no real title available?)
- Apportionment methods
- Asymptotic seat bias formulas
- Divisor methods for proportional representation systems: an optimization approach to vector and matrix apportionment problems
- European apportionment via the Cambridge compromise
- Goodness-of-fit criteria for the Adams and Jefferson rounding methods and their limiting laws
- On stationary multiplier methods for the rounding of probabilities and the limiting law of the Sainte-Laguë divergence
- Probability: A Graduate Course
- Sainte-Laguë’s chi-square divergence for the rounding of probabilities and its convergence to a stable law
- Seat allocation distributions and seat biases of stationary apportionment methods for proportional representation
- Seat biases of apportionment methods under general distributional assumptions
- Seat excess variances of apportionment methods for proportional representation
- The probability of the Alabama paradox
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)
