The elimination paradox: apportionment in the Democratic Party

Jones, Michael A.; McCune, David; Wilson, Jennifer M.

doi:10.1007/s11127-018-0608-3

Cited by 9 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hamilton-method is neither House-nor population-monotone. In addition, it also suffers from the New State and Elimination paradoxes (see Balinski and Young [20] and Jones et al [21] for further details).…”

Section: The Apportionment Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Apportionment and districting by Sum of Ranking Differences

Sziklai

Héberger

2020

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sum of Ranking Differences is an innovative statistical method that ranks competing solutions based on a reference point. The latter might arise naturally, or can be aggregated from the data. We provide two case studies to feature both possibilities. Apportionment and districting are two critical issues that emerge in relation to democratic elections. Theoreticians invented clever heuristics to measure malapportionment and the compactness of the shape of the constituencies, yet, there is no unique best method in either cases. Using data from Norway and the US we rank the standard methods both for the apportionment and for the districting problem. In case of apportionment, we find that all the classical methods perform reasonably well, with subtle but significant differences. By a small margin the Leximin method emerges as a winner, but-somewhat unexpectedly-the non-regular Imperiali method ties for first place. In districting, the Lee-Sallee index and a novel parametric method the so-called Moment Invariant performs the best, although the latter is sensitive to the function's chosen parameter.

show abstract

Section: The Apportionment Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%