IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/stapro/v76y2006i16p1723-1730.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Seat excess variances of apportionment methods for proportional representation

Author

Listed:
  • Schwingenschlögl, Udo
  • Drton, Mathias

Abstract

Apportionment methods round vote proportions to integer numbers of seats in a parliament. The seat excess is the difference between the integer seat allocation and the fractional ideal share of seats. In order to quantify biased treatment of larger versus smaller parties, previous studies derived the conditional expectation of the seat excess, when the vote proportions are conditioned to be ordered. We complement these studies by computing the conditional seat excess variance for popular apportionment methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Schwingenschlögl, Udo & Drton, Mathias, 2006. "Seat excess variances of apportionment methods for proportional representation," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 76(16), pages 1723-1730, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:stapro:v:76:y:2006:i:16:p:1723-1730
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167-7152(06)00126-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Udo Schwingenschlögl & Mathias Drton, 2004. "Seat allocation distributions and seat biases of stationary apportionment methods for proportional representation," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 60(2), pages 191-202, September.
    2. Mathias Drton & Udo Schwingenschlögl, 2005. "Asymptotic seat bias formulas," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 62(1), pages 23-31, September.
    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. Schwingenschlögl, Udo, 2007. "Probabilities of majority and minority violation in proportional representation," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 77(17), pages 1690-1695, November.
    2. Svante Janson, 2014. "Asymptotic bias of some election methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 215(1), pages 89-136, April.

    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. 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.
    2. Schwingenschlögl, Udo, 2007. "Probabilities of majority and minority violation in proportional representation," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 77(17), pages 1690-1695, November.
    3. 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.
    4. Svante Janson, 2014. "Asymptotic bias of some election methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 215(1), pages 89-136, April.
    5. Udo Schwingenschlögl, 2008. "Asymptotic Equivalence of Seat Bias Models," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 49(2), pages 191-200, April.
    6. Jones, Michael A. & McCune, David & Wilson, Jennifer M., 2020. "New quota-based apportionment methods: The allocation of delegates in the Republican Presidential Primary," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 122-137.
    7. Słomczyński, Wojciech & Życzkowski, Karol, 2012. "Mathematical aspects of degressive proportionality," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 94-101.
    8. Jarosław Flis & Wojciech Słomczyński & Dariusz Stolicki, 2020. "Pot and ladle: a formula for estimating the distribution of seats under the Jefferson–D’Hondt method," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 182(1), pages 201-227, January.

    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:stapro:v:76:y:2006:i:16:p:1723-1730. 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/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/622892/description#description .

    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.