Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The two names for these methods—highest averages and divisors—reflect two different ways of thinking about them, and their two independent inventions. However, both procedures are equivalent and give the same answer. [1] Divisor methods are based on rounding rules, defined using a signpost sequence post(k), where k ≤ post(k) ≤ k+1.
An apportionment method is denoted by a multivalued function (,); a particular -solution is a single-valued function (,) which selects a single apportionment from (,). A partial apportionment method is an apportionment method for specific fixed values of n {\displaystyle n} and h {\displaystyle h} ; it is a multivalued function M ∗ ( t ...
Huntington-Hill uses a continuity correction as a compromise, given by taking the geometric mean of both divisors, i.e.: [4] A n = P n ( n + 1 ) {\displaystyle A_{n}={\frac {P}{\sqrt {n(n+1)}}}} where P is the population of the state, and n is the number of seats it currently holds before the possible allocation of the next seat.
The D'Hondt method, [a] also called the Jefferson method or the greatest divisors method, is an apportionment method for allocating seats in parliaments among federal states, or in proportional representation among political parties. It belongs to the class of highest-averages methods.
Webster's method is defined in terms of a quota as in the largest remainder method; in this method, the quota is called a "divisor". For a given value of the divisor, the population count for each region is divided by this divisor and then rounded to give the number of legislators to allocate to that region.
An apportionment paradox is a situation where an apportionment—a rule for dividing discrete objects according to some proportional relationship—produces results that violate notions of common sense or fairness. Certain quantities, like milk, can be divided in any proportion whatsoever; others, such as horses, cannot—only whole numbers ...
Biproportional apportionment is a proportional representation method to allocate seats in proportion to two separate characteristics. That is, for two different partitions each part receives the proportional number of seats within the total number of seats.
When using the Hare quota, this rule is called Hamilton's method, and is the third-most common apportionment rule worldwide (after Jefferson's method and Webster's method). [1] Despite their intuitive definition, quota methods are generally disfavored by social choice theorists as a result of apportionment paradoxes.