IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v56y2010i2p373-387.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Divisor-Based Biproportional Apportionment in Electoral Systems: A Real-Life Benchmark Study

Author

Listed:
  • Sebastian Maier

    (Institute of Mathematics, University of Augsburg, D-86135 Augsburg, Germany)

  • Petur Zachariassen

    (University of the Faroe Islands, FO-100 Tórshavn, Faroe Islands)

  • Martin Zachariasen

    (Department of Computer Science, University of Copenhagen, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark)

Abstract

Biproportional apportionment methods provide two-way proportionality in electoral systems where the electoral region is subdivided into electoral districts. The problem is to assign integral values to the elements of a matrix that are proportional to a given input matrix, and such that a set of row- and column-sum requirements are fulfilled. In a divisor-based method for biproportional apportionment, the problem is solved by computing appropriate row and column divisors, and by rounding the quotients. We present a comprehensive experimental evaluation of divisor-based biproportional apportionment in an electoral system context. By performing experiments on real-life benchmark instances (election data with multimember districts), we evaluate the general quality of divisor-based apportionments with respect to, e.g., deviation from quota, reversal orderings, and occurrences of ties. For example, we studied the frequency in which a party with a higher vote count in a district ended up with fewer seats in that district.

Suggested Citation

  • Sebastian Maier & Petur Zachariassen & Martin Zachariasen, 2010. "Divisor-Based Biproportional Apportionment in Electoral Systems: A Real-Life Benchmark Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(2), pages 373-387, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:56:y:2010:i:2:p:373-387
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1090.1118
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1090.1118
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.1090.1118?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lawrence R. Ernst, 1994. "Appointment Methods for the House of Representatives and the Court Challenges," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(10), pages 1207-1227, October.
    2. Michel L. Balinski & Gabrielle Demange, 1989. "Algorithm for Proportional Matrices in Reals and Integers," Post-Print halshs-00585327, HAL.
    3. Sebastian Maier, 2006. "Algorithms for Biproportional Apportionment," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Bruno Simeone & Friedrich Pukelsheim (ed.), Mathematics and Democracy, pages 105-116, Springer.
    4. Gassner, Marjorie, 1988. "Two-dimensional rounding for a quasi-proportional representation," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 529-538.
    5. Petur Zachariassen & Martin Zachariassen, 2006. "A Comparison of Electoral Formulae for the Faroese Parliament," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Bruno Simeone & Friedrich Pukelsheim (ed.), Mathematics and Democracy, pages 235-251, Springer.
    6. Marjorie B. Gassner, 1991. "Biproportional Delegations," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 3(3), pages 321-342, July.
    7. Gisèle De Meur & Marjorie Gassner & Xavier Hubaut, 1985. "A Mathematical Model for Political Bipolarization," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/232145, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    8. Gaffke, Norbert & Pukelsheim, Friedrich, 2008. "Divisor methods for proportional representation systems: An optimization approach to vector and matrix apportionment problems," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 166-184, September.
    9. Friedrich Pukelsheim, 2006. "Current Issues of Apportionment Methods," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Bruno Simeone & Friedrich Pukelsheim (ed.), Mathematics and Democracy, pages 167-176, Springer.
    10. Vito Fragnelli & Guido Ortona, 2006. "Comparison of Electoral Systems: Simulative and Game Theoretic Approaches," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Bruno Simeone & Friedrich Pukelsheim (ed.), Mathematics and Democracy, pages 65-81, Springer.
    11. Benoit, Kenneth, 2000. "Which Electoral Formula Is the Most Proportional? A New Look with New Evidence," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(4), pages 381-388, July.
    12. Aline Pennisi, 2006. "The Italian Bug: A Flawed Procedure for Bi-Proportional Seat Allocation," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Bruno Simeone & Friedrich Pukelsheim (ed.), Mathematics and Democracy, pages 151-165, Springer.
    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. Demange, Gabrielle, 2012. "On party-proportional representation under district distortions," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 181-191.
    2. Zhaonan Qu & Alfred Galichon & Johan Ugander, 2023. "On Sinkhorn's Algorithm and Choice Modeling," Papers 2310.00260, arXiv.org.
    3. Gabrielle Demange, 2013. "On Allocating Seats To Parties And Districts: Apportionments," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(03), pages 1-14.
    4. Oelbermann, Kai-Friederike, 2016. "Alternate Scaling algorithm for biproportional divisor methods," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 25-32.
    5. Haydar Evren & Manshu Khanna, 2021. "Affirmative Action's Cumulative Fractional Assignments," Papers 2111.11963, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2024.
    6. Victoriano Ramírez-González & Blanca Delgado-Márquez & Antonio Palomares & Adolfo López-Carmona, 2014. "Evaluation and possible improvements of the Swedish electoral system," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 215(1), pages 285-307, April.
    7. Kerem Akartunalı & Philip A. Knight, 2017. "Network models and biproportional rounding for fair seat allocations in the UK elections," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 253(1), pages 1-19, June.
    8. Friedrich Pukelsheim, 2014. "Biproportional scaling of matrices and the iterative proportional fitting procedure," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 215(1), pages 269-283, 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. Demange, Gabrielle, 2012. "On party-proportional representation under district distortions," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 181-191.
    2. Oelbermann, Kai-Friederike, 2016. "Alternate Scaling algorithm for biproportional divisor methods," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 25-32.
    3. Gaffke, Norbert & Pukelsheim, Friedrich, 2008. "Divisor methods for proportional representation systems: An optimization approach to vector and matrix apportionment problems," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 166-184, September.
    4. Paolo Serafini, 2015. "Certificates of optimality for minimum norm biproportional apportionments," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 44(1), pages 1-12, January.
    5. Gabrielle Demange, 2018. "New electoral systems and old referendums," PSE Working Papers hal-01852206, HAL.
    6. Frederic Udina & Pedro Delicado, 2005. "Estimating Parliamentary composition through electoral polls," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 168(2), pages 387-399, March.
    7. Gabrielle Demange, 2021. "On the resolution of cross-liabilities," PSE Working Papers halshs-03151128, HAL.
    8. Gabrielle Demange, 2013. "On Allocating Seats To Parties And Districts: Apportionments," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(03), pages 1-14.
    9. Matakos, Konstantinos & Savolainen, Riikka & Troumpounis, Orestis & Tukiainen, Janne & Xefteris, Dimitrios, 2018. "Electoral Institutions and Intraparty Cohesion," Working Papers 109, VATT Institute for Economic Research.
    10. Michel Balinski, 2007. "Equitable representation and recruitment," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 149(1), pages 27-36, February.
    11. V. I. Blanutsa & K. A. Cherepanov, 2019. "Regional Information Flows: Existing and New Approaches to Geographical Study," Regional Research of Russia, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 97-106, January.
    12. John E. Jackson & Jacek Klich & Krystyna Poznanska, 2001. "Economic Transition and Elections in Poland," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 391, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    13. Kerem Akartunalı & Philip A. Knight, 2017. "Network models and biproportional rounding for fair seat allocations in the UK elections," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 253(1), pages 1-19, June.
    14. Galina Borisyuk & Colin Rallings & Michael Thrasher, 2004. "Selecting Indexes of Electoral Proportionality: General Properties and Relationships," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 51-74, February.
    15. Karpov, Alexander, 2015. "Alliance incentives under the D’Hondt method," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 1-7.
    16. Kurrild-Klitgaard, Peter, 2011. "Election inversions, coalitions and proportional representation: Examples from Danish elections," MPRA Paper 35302, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Svante Janson, 2014. "Asymptotic bias of some election methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 215(1), pages 89-136, April.
    18. Marjorie B. Gassner, 1991. "Biproportional Delegations," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 3(3), pages 321-342, July.
    19. Jon H. Fiva & Federica Izzo & Janne Tukiainen, 2024. "The Gatekeeper’s Dilemma: Political Selection or Team Effort," Discussion Papers 164, Aboa Centre for Economics.
    20. 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.

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:56:y:2010:i:2:p:373-387. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.