IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v59y1988i2p151-165.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Proportional representation: An empirical evaluation of single-stage, non-ranked voting procedures

Author

Listed:
  • Amnon Rapoport
  • Dan Felsenthal
  • Zeev Maoz

Abstract

Rapoport, Felsenthal and Maoz (1988) have proposed three alternative methods to discern the fair proportion of seats that a party in a representative assembly ought to receive as a function of voters' preference orderings. All three methods assume that the ratio between the number of voters preferring party i over j to the number of voters preferring party j over i can be tested for consistency, and, if sufficiently consistent, can be appropriately scaled to discover the proportion of seats each party ought to receive. Using these methods as standards, we use exit-poll data gathered during the 1985 elections to the general convention of the Israeli General Federation of Labor (Histadrut) to examine the extent to which plurality- and approval-voting procedures provide a fair allocation of seats. The findings indicate that: (a) all three methods yield sufficiently consistent matrices of preference ratios; (b) the plurality- and the approval-voting procedures yielded significantly different proportional representations; (c) the proposed proportion of seats according to the three aggregation methods fall midway between the proportion of seats that the plurality and the approval procedures allocate. We discuss practical implications of these findings. Requests for reprints should be sent to: Professor Amnon Rapoport, Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina, Davie Hall 013A, Chapel Hill, NC 27514. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 1988

Suggested Citation

  • Amnon Rapoport & Dan Felsenthal & Zeev Maoz, 1988. "Proportional representation: An empirical evaluation of single-stage, non-ranked voting procedures," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 59(2), pages 151-165, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:59:y:1988:i:2:p:151-165
    DOI: 10.1007/BF00054451
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/BF00054451
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF00054451?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. William Ludwin, 1976. "Voting methods: A simulation," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 19-30, March.
    2. Richard Joslyn, 1976. "The impact of decision rules in multi-candidate campaigns," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 1-17, March.
    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. Yakov Ben-Haim, 2021. "Approval and plurality voting with uncertainty: Info-gap analysis of robustness," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 189(1), pages 239-256, October.

    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. John Dobra, 1983. "An approach to empirical studies of voting paradoxes: An update and extension," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 241-250, January.
    2. Samuel Merrill, 1981. "Strategic decisions under one-stage multi-candidate voting systems," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 115-134, January.
    3. Robert Bordley, 1985. "A precise method for evaluating election schemes," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 113-123, January.

    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:kap:pubcho:v:59:y:1988:i:2:p:151-165. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.