IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/matsoc/v63y2012i2p136-140.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A power-weighted variant of the EU27 Cambridge Compromise

Author

Listed:
  • Grimmett, G.R.
  • Oelbermann, K.-F.
  • Pukelsheim, F.

Abstract

The Cambridge Compromise composition of the European Parliament allocates five base seats to each Member State’s citizenry, and apportions the remaining seats proportionately to population figures using the divisor method with rounding upwards and observing a 96 seat capping. The power-weighted variant avoids the capping step, proceeding instead by a non-linear downweighting of the population figures until the largest State is allocated exactly 96 seats. The pertinent calculations of the variant are described, and its relative constitutional merits are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:matsoc:v:63:y:2012:i:2:p:136-140
    DOI: 10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2011.11.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016548961100120X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2011.11.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Geoffrey Grimmett & Jean-François Laslier & Friedrich Pukelsheim & Victoriano Ramirez Gonzalez & Richard J. Rose & Wojciech Slomczynski & Martin Zachariasen & Karol Życzkowski, 2011. "The allocation between the EU member states of the seats in the European Parliament Cambridge Compromise," Working Papers hal-00609946, HAL.
    2. Grimmett, Geoffrey R., 2012. "European apportionment via the Cambridge Compromise," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 68-73.
    3. Heinrich Lothar & Pukelsheim Friedrich & Schwingenschlögl Udo, 2005. "On stationary multiplier methods for the rounding of probabilities and the limiting law of the Sainte-Laguë divergence," Statistics & Risk Modeling, De Gruyter, vol. 23(2/2005), pages 117-129, February.
    4. 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. Wenruo Lyu & Liang Zhao, 2023. "Axioms and Divisor Methods for a Generalized Apportionment Problem with Relative Equality," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-13, July.
    2. Blanca L Delgado-Márquez & Michael Kaeding & Antonio Palomares, 2013. "A more balanced composition of the European Parliament with degressive proportionality," European Union Politics, , vol. 14(3), pages 458-471, September.
    3. Katarzyna Cegiełka & Piotr Dniestrzański & Janusz Łyko & Arkadiusz Maciuk & Maciej Szczeciński, 2021. "A neutral core of degressively proportional allocations under lexicographic preferences of agents," Eurasian Economic Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 11(4), pages 667-685, December.
    4. Słomczyński, Wojciech & Życzkowski, Karol, 2012. "Mathematical aspects of degressive proportionality," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 94-101.

    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. 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.
    2. Słomczyński, Wojciech & Życzkowski, Karol, 2012. "Mathematical aspects of degressive proportionality," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 94-101.
    3. Katarzyna Cegiełka & Janusz Łyko & Radosław Rudek, 2019. "Beyond the Cambridge Compromise algorithm towards degressively proportional allocations," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 317-332, June.
    4. Markus Brill & Jean-François Laslier & Piotr Skowron, 2018. "Multiwinner approval rules as apportionment methods," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 30(3), pages 358-382, July.
    5. Antonin Macé & Rafael Treibich, 2021. "Inducing Cooperation through Weighted Voting and Veto Power," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 13(3), pages 70-111, August.
    6. Laszlo A. Koczy & Balazs Sziklai, 2018. "Bounds on Malapportionment," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 1801, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    7. Péter Csóka & P. Jean-Jacques Herings, 2018. "Decentralized Clearing in Financial Networks," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(10), pages 4681-4699, October.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Kellermann, Thomas, 2012. "The minimum-based procedure: A principled way to allocate seats in the European Parliament," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 102-106.
    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. Svante Janson, 2014. "Asymptotic bias of some election methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 215(1), pages 89-136, April.
    14. Niemeyer, Horst F. & Niemeyer, Alice C., 2008. "Apportionment methods," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 240-253, September.
    15. Daniele Pretolani, 2014. "Apportionments with minimum Gini index of disproportionality: a Quadratic Knapsack approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 215(1), pages 257-267, April.
    16. Ulrich Kohler & Janina Zeh, 2012. "Apportionment methods," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 12(3), pages 375-392, September.
    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. 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(1/2004), pages 43-60, January.
    19. Tom Van Puyenbroeck, 2008. "Proportional Representation, Gini Coefficients, and the Principle of Transfers," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 20(4), pages 498-526, October.
    20. Biró, Péter & Kóczy, László Á. & Sziklai, Balázs, 2015. "Fair apportionment in the view of the Venice Commission’s recommendation," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 32-41.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:63:y:2012:i:2:p:136-140. 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.