-Adam
At 12:55 PM 2/1/2003 +0200, you wrote:
I hve this example on my page (in Finnish) at the end of the chapter on Hare-Niemeyer. Probably not close enough for you.19 seats 550, 470, 250, 160 7, 6, 4, 2 (7,31; 6,24; 3,32; 2,13). 550, 470, 250, 150 8, 6, 3, 2 (7,36; 6,29; 3,35; 2,01) http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~olsalmi/vaalit/vaalimat.html Olli Salmi >The parameters are as follows: the regional tournament has 16 teams - this >is fixed. Realistically, most sections will have between 3 and 20 teams, >with some approaching 25 or so. 6-14 or so is be the most common >range. Every section is guaranteed at least one bid to the regional >tournament, provided they have at least one team, so no example should >conclude that a section gets zero bids. Every region has either three or >four sections. > >Given these parameters (three or four "parties", between three and twenty >"voters" in each party, sixteen "seats" in the house), can anyone come up >with an example of the population paradox playing out? Barring the >presence of such an example, all I can do is show a case where the results >differ from Webster's method, and try to argue that it's less proportional >as a result. But this is a lot less convincing. ---- For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
