Talk:Alabama paradox

From electowiki

This is the discussion page (the "Talk:" page) for the page named "Alabama paradox". Please use this page to discuss the topic described in the corresponding page in the main namespace (i.e. the "Alabama paradox" page here on electowiki), or visit Help:Talk to learn more about talk pages.

Merge request

Should the Alba a Paradox page merge with the House Monotonicity Criterion page? -- unsigned comment by 2A02:2F0E:605:8400:75BA:97E2:41E3:5F75 - unknown timestamp (UTC)

Electoral system

wikipedia: "A method may follow quota and be free of the Alabama paradox. Balinski and Young constructed a method that does so, although it is not in common political use", does anyone know more about this method KelvinVoskuijl (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

There's a link at the Balinski–Young theorem page, reference 5. Or see Balinski and Young 1982,[1] page 134 (section 7, "Staying within the quota and house monotonicity"). If I recall correctly, the method works by identifying a set of parties who can be given a seat without causing a quota violation down the line. Then you pick from this set according to whatever logic you'd like, and recurse. See e.g. page 139 of Balinski and Young 1982 for an example of a "Webster-like" quota rule. Kristomun (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  1. Balinski, M; Young HP (1982). Fair Representation: Meeting the Ideal of One Man, One Vote. Yale Univ Pr. ISBN 0-300-02724-9.