2018
DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.1805.08291
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Pot and ladle: seat allocation and seat bias under the Jefferson-D'Hondt method

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

1
0

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(2 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For proof of the above, see (Flis et al, 2018). Of the above assumptions, A2 and A3 are essentially political in nature, requiring that there be no anomalies in the spatial distribution of party support (such as regionalisms, malapportionment, or large differences in district magnitudes) that cause districtlevel electoral results to diverge from nationwide data.…”
Section: Theoretical Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For proof of the above, see (Flis et al, 2018). Of the above assumptions, A2 and A3 are essentially political in nature, requiring that there be no anomalies in the spatial distribution of party support (such as regionalisms, malapportionment, or large differences in district magnitudes) that cause districtlevel electoral results to diverge from nationwide data.…”
Section: Theoretical Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The "Pot and Ladle" Model of the Jefferson-D'Hondt System. The starting point of our reasoning consists of the "pot and ladle" model of the Jefferson-D'Hondt system, introduced in (Flis et al, 2019) and further elaborated (Flis et al, 2018), which provides the following closed-form formula for estimating seat counts from nationwide vote shares:…”
Section: Theoretical Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%