Advertisement

Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 215, Issue 1, pp 89–136 | Cite as

Asymptotic bias of some election methods

  • Svante JansonEmail author
Article

Abstract

Consider an election where N seats are distributed among parties with proportions p 1,…,p m of the votes. We study, for the common divisor and quota methods, the asymptotic distribution, and in particular the mean, of the seat excess of a party, i.e. the difference between the number of seats given to the party and the (real) number Np i that yields exact proportionality. Our approach is to keep p 1,…,p m fixed and let N→∞, with N random in a suitable way.

In particular, we give formulas showing the bias favouring large or small parties for the different election methods.

Keywords

Proportional election methods Divisor methods Quota methods Bias Probability of violating quota Apparentements 

Notes

Acknowledgement

I thank Friedrich Pukelsheim for many helpful comments.

References

  1. Balinski, M. L., & Young, H. P. (2001). Fair representation (2nd ed.). Washington: Brookings Institution Press. Google Scholar
  2. Belgium: Loi électorale communale du 4 août 1932. http://elections2006.wallonie.be/apps/spip/IMG/pdf/loi_electorale_1932-2.pdf. Example of official regulations (accessed 21 October 2011).
  3. Billingsley, P. (1968). Convergence of probability measures. New York: Wiley. Google Scholar
  4. Bingham, N. H., Goldie, C. M., & Teugels, J. L. (1987). Regular variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carstairs, A. M. (1980). A short history of electoral systems in western Europe. London: George Allen & Unwin. Google Scholar
  6. D’Hondt, V. (1882) Système pratique et raisonné de représentation proportionnelle. Bruxelles. Google Scholar
  7. Drton, M., & Schwingenschlögl, U. (2005). Asymptotic seat bias formulas. Metrika, 62(1), 23–31. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Estonia: Riigikogu Election Act. http://www.vvk.ee/public/dok/RKseadus_eng_2010.pdf. Example of official regulations (accessed 21 October 2011).
  9. Farrell, D. M. (2011). Electoral systems (2nd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar
  10. Gaffke, N., & Pukelsheim, F. (2008). Divisor methods for proportional representation systems: an optimization approach to vector and matrix apportionment problems. Mathematical Social Sciences, 56, 166–184. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Germany: Bundeswahlgesetz. www.bundestag.de/dokumente/rechtsgrundlagen/bwahlg_pdf.pdf. Example of official regulations (accessed 21 October 2011).
  12. Grafakos, L. (2004). Classical and modern Fourier analysis. Upper Saddle River: Pearson. Google Scholar
  13. Grimmett, G. R. (2012). European apportionment via the Cambridge compromise. Mathematical Social Sciences, 63, 68–73. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gut, A. (2005) Probability: a graduate course. New York: Springer. Google Scholar
  15. Heinrich, L., & Schwingenschlögl, U. (2006). Goodness-of-fit criteria for the Adams and Jefferson rounding methods and their limiting laws. Metrika, 64(2), 191–207. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heinrich, L., Pukelsheim, F., & Schwingenschlögl, U. (2004). Sainte-Laguë’s chi-square divergence for the rounding of probabilities and its convergence to a stable law. Statistics & Decisions, 22, 43–59. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heinrich, L., Pukelsheim, F., & Schwingenschlögl, U. (2005). On stationary multiplier methods for the rounding of probabilities and the limiting law of the Sainte-Laguë divergence. Statistics & Decisions, 23, 117–129. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Huntington, E. V. (1928). The apportionment of representatives in Congress. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 30(1), 85–110. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Janson, S. (2011). Another note on the Droop quota and rounding. Voting Matters, 29, 32–34. Google Scholar
  20. Janson, S., & Linusson, S. (2012, to appear) The probability of the Alabama paradox. Journal of Applied Probability, 49. Google Scholar
  21. Kopfermann, K. (1991). Mathematische Aspekte der Wahlverfahren. Mannheim: Wissenschaftsverlag. Google Scholar
  22. Leutgäb, P., & Pukelsheim, F. (2009). List apparentements in local elections – a lottery. Homo Oeconomicus, 26(3/4), 489–500. Google Scholar
  23. Macau: Lei Eleitoral No. 3/2001. http://bo.io.gov.mo/bo/i/2001/10/lei03.asp. Example of official regulations (accessed 21 October 2011).
  24. Niemeyer, H. F., & Niemeyer, A. C. (2008). Apportionment methods. Mathematical Social Sciences, 56(2), 240–253. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Niemeyer, H., & Wolf, G. (1984). Über einige mathematische Aspekte bei Wahlverfahren. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik, 64(5), 340–343. Google Scholar
  26. Oelbermann, K.-F., Pukelsheim, F., & Palomares, A. (2010). The 2009 European Parliament elections: from votes to seats in 27 ways. European Electoral Studies, 5(1), 148–182. Google Scholar
  27. Pólya, G. (1918a). Über die Verteilungssysteme der Proportionalwahl. Zeitschrift für schweizerische Statistik und Volkswirtschaft, 54, 363–387. Google Scholar
  28. Pólya, G. (1918b). Sur la représentation proportionnelle en matière électorale. L’Enseignement Mathématique, 20, 355–379. Google Scholar
  29. Pólya, G. (1919). Proportionalwahl und Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung. Zeitschrift für die Gesamte Staatswissenschaft, 74, 297–322. Google Scholar
  30. Sainte-Laguë, A. (1910a). La représentation proportionnelle et la méthode des moindres carrés. Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de L’Académie des Sciences, 151, 377–378. Google Scholar
  31. Sainte-Laguë, A. (1910b). La représentation proportionnelle et la méthode des moindres carrés. Annales Scientifiques de L’Ecole Normale Supérieure (3), 27, 529–542. Google Scholar
  32. Schuster, K., Pukelsheim, F., Drton, M., & Draper, N. R. (2003). Seat biases of apportionment methods for proportional representation. Electoral Studies, 22, 651–676. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schwingenschlögl, U. (2008). Seat biases of apportionment methods under general distributional assumptions. Applied Mathematics Letters, 21(1), 1–3. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schwingenschlögl, U., & Drton, M. (2004). Seat allocation distributions and seat biases of stationary apportionment methods for proportional representation. Metrika, 60(2), 191–202. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schwingenschlögl, U., & Drton, M. (2006). Seat excess variances of apportionment methods for proportional representation. Statistics & Probability Letters, 76(16), 1723–1730. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Weyl, H. (1916). Über die Gleichverteilung von Zahlen modulo Eins. Mathematische Annalen, 77(3), 313–352. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations