Dear Elections Methods,
The Alabama Paradox involves the reality that a state can get fewer
seats in a parliament with a larger size. This can happen using the
Largest Remainder Method.
There are various forms of axioms that can be assumed about how a
good apportionment method should behave with respect to population
changes.
For some examples of what can happen, see:
http://www.fiu.edu/~cvaug001/apportionment/paradoxexamples.htm
http://www.fiu.edu/~cvaug001/apportionment/moreparadoxexamples.htm
Regards,
Joe
On Dec 8, 2006, at 12:56 AM, Chris Benham wrote:
MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
The very first use of the Presidential Veto was when George
Washington
vetoed a bill to apportion the house by LR/Hamilton. We used
d'Hondt/Jefferson for a while. There was later another bill to enact
LR/Hamilton. It passed and wasn't vetored, and LR/Hamilton was
used for a
while--till someone pointed out the bizarre paradoxes that it's
subject to:
Some people move from another state to your state, causing your
state to
lose a seat.
Mike,
Can you (or anyone) explain or give a demonstration of how this
LR/Hamilton apportionment method
could do that?
Chris Benham
----
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
list info
------------------------------------------------
Joseph Malkevitch
Department of Mathematics
York College (CUNY)
Jamaica, New York 11451
Phone: 718-262-2551 (Voicemail available)
My new email is:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
web page:
http://www.york.cuny.edu/~malk
----
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
