Largest remainder method: Difference between revisions

Content added Content deleted

Inline

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 ==Technical evaluation and paradoxes==
-The largest remainder method is the only apportionment that satisfies the [[quota rule]]; in fact, it is designed to satisfy this criterion. However, it comes at the cost of [[paradox|paradoxical behaviour]]. The [[Alabama paradox]] is defined as when an increase in seats apportioned leads to decrease in the number of seats a certain party holds. Suppose we want to apportion 25 seats between 6 parties in the proportions 1500:1500:900:500:500:200. The two parties with 500 votes get three seats each. Now allocate 26 seats, and it will be found that the these parties get only two seats apiece.
+The largest remainder method is the only apportionment that satisfies the [[quota rule]]; in fact, it is designed to satisfy this criterion. However, it comes at the cost of [[Balinski–Young_theorem|paradoxical behaviour]]. The [[Alabama paradox]] is defined as when an increase in seats apportioned leads to decrease in the number of seats a certain party holds. Suppose we want to apportion 25 seats between 6 parties in the proportions 1500:1500:900:500:500:200. The two parties with 500 votes get three seats each. Now allocate 26 seats, and it will be found that the these parties get only two seats apiece.
 With 25 seats, we get: