IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/has/discpr/1716.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

US vs. European Apportionment Practices: The Conflict between Monotonicity and Proportionality

Author

Listed:
  • Laszlo A. Koczy

    (Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies, Hungarian Academy of Sciences and Keleti Faculty of Business and Management, Obuda University)

  • Peter Biro

    (Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies, Hungarian Academy of Sciences and Department of Operations Research and Actuarial Sciences, Corvinus University)

  • Balazs Sziklai

    (Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies, Hungarian Academy of Sciences and Department of Operations Research and Actuarial Sciences, Corvinus University)

Abstract

To ensure equal representation, the voting districts of a country must be more or less of the same size. Designing such voting districts, however, is not an easy task due to the fact that voting districts are encompassed in administrative regions. Since the respective share of an administrative region, i.e.\ the number of seats its entitled to based on its population, is not necessarily an integer number, it is hard to distribute the seats in a fair way. The arising fair distribution problem is called the apportionment problem. Proportionality of the allocation is the most important, but not the only factor of a fair solution. Monotonicity related difficulties, administrative and demographic issues make the problem more complex. We provide an overview of the classical apportionment methods as well as the Leximin Method – a new apportionment technique designed to comply with the recommendation made by the Venice Commission. We discuss the properties of apportionments and test the most prominent methods on real data.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:has:discpr:1716
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://econ.core.hu/file/download/mtdp/MTDP1716.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Péter Csóka & P. Jean-Jacques Herings, 2018. "Decentralized Clearing in Financial Networks," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(10), pages 4681-4699, October.
    2. Attila Tasnádi, 2008. "The extent of the population paradox in the Hungarian electoral system," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 134(3), pages 293-305, March.
    3. Lauwers, Luc & Van Puyenbroeck, Tom, 2008. "Minimally Disproportional Representation: Generalized Entropy and Stolarsky Mean-Divisor Methods of Apportionment," Working Papers 2008/24, Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel, Faculteit Economie en Management.
    4. Kóczy Á., László & Biró, Péter & Sziklai, Balázs, 2012. "Választókörzetek igazságosan? [Fair apportionment of voting districts in Hungary]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(11), pages 1165-1186.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Attila Tasnádi, 2011. "The political districting problem: A survey," Society and Economy, Akadémiai Kiadó, Hungary, vol. 33(3), pages 543-554, December.
    8. Kóczy, László Á., 2012. "Beyond Lisbon: Demographic trends and voting power in the European Union Council of Ministers," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 152-158.
    9. Grimmett, Geoffrey R., 2012. "European apportionment via the Cambridge Compromise," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 68-73.
    10. Csató, László, 2015. "Between plurality and proportionality: an analysis of vote transfer systems," Corvinus Economics Working Papers (CEWP) 2015/06, Corvinus University of Budapest.
    11. Csoka, Péter & Herings, P. Jean-Jacques, 2016. "Decentralized Clearing in Financial Networks (RM/16/005-revised-)," Research Memorandum 037, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    12. 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. Csóka, Péter & Kondor, Gábor, 2019. "Delegációk igazságos kiválasztása társadalmi választások elméletével [Choosing a fair delegation by social choice theory]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(7), pages 771-787.
    2. 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.
    3. Pivato, Marcus & Soh, Arnold, 2020. "Weighted representative democracy," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 52-63.
    4. Erel Segal-Halevi & Balázs R. Sziklai, 2019. "Monotonicity and competitive equilibrium in cake-cutting," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 68(2), pages 363-401, September.
    5. Laszlo A. Koczy & Balazs Sziklai, 2018. "Bounds on Malapportionment," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 1801, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Csóka, Péter & Kondor, Gábor, 2019. "Delegációk igazságos kiválasztása társadalmi választások elméletével [Choosing a fair delegation by social choice theory]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(7), pages 771-787.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Berlinger, Edina & Váradi, Kata & Dömötör, Barbara & Illés, Ferenc, 2016. "A tőzsdei elszámolóházak vesztesége [The loss from central clearing houses]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(9), pages 993-1010.
    7. Laszlo A. Koczy & Balazs Sziklai, 2018. "Bounds on Malapportionment," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 1801, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    8. Csóka, Péter & Havran, Dániel & Váradi, Kata, 2016. "Konferencia a pénzügyi piacok likviditásáról. Sixth Annual Financial Market Liquidity Conference, 2015 [Conference on the liquidity of financial markets. Sixth Annual Financial Market Liquidity Con," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(4), pages 461-469.
    9. 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.
    10. Ketelaars, Martijn & Borm, Peter & Herings, P.J.J., 2023. "Duality in Financial Networks," Other publications TiSEM 26750293-9599-4e05-9ae1-8, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    11. László Á. Kóczy, 2016. "Power Indices When Players can Commit to Reject Coalitions," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 77-91, August.
    12. Imre Fertő & László Á Kóczy & Attila Kovács & Balázs R Sziklai, 0. "The power ranking of the members of the Agricultural Committee of the European Parliament," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 47(5), pages 1897-1919.
    13. Wang Guizhou & Zhang Si & Yu Tao & Ning Yu, 2021. "A Systematic Overview of Blockchain Research," Journal of Systems Science and Information, De Gruyter, vol. 9(3), pages 205-238, June.
    14. Allouch, Nizar & Jalloul, Maya & Duncan, Alfred, 2023. "Strategic default in financial networks," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 941-954.
    15. repec:has:discpr:1611 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Wada, Junichiro & Kamahara, Yuta, 2018. "Studying malapportionment using α-divergence," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 77-89.
    17. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2019. "On some k-scoring rules for committee elections: agreement and Condorcet Principle," Working Papers hal-02147735, HAL.
    18. Mithun Chakraborty & Erel Segal-Halevi & Warut Suksompong, 2021. "Weighted Fairness Notions for Indivisible Items Revisited," Papers 2112.04166, arXiv.org.
    19. Steven J. Brams & Markus Brill & Anne-Marie George, 2022. "The excess method: a multiwinner approval voting procedure to allocate wasted votes," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 58(2), pages 283-300, February.
    20. 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.
    21. Martijn Ketelaars & Peter Borm & Marieke Quant, 2020. "Decentralization and mutual liability rules," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 92(3), pages 577-599, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Apportionment problem; Largest remainder methods; Divisor methods; Venice Commission; Leximin method;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • D78 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Positive Analysis of Policy Formulation and Implementation

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:has:discpr:1716. 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: Nora Horvath (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iehashu.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.