Talk:Alabama paradox: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
(This is the Talk Page for wether the Alabama Paradox page should merge with the House Monotonicity Criterion page.) |
No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{TalkPageIntro}}
Should the Alba a Paradox page merge with the House Monotonicity Criterion page?▼
== Merge request ==
▲Should the Alba a Paradox page merge with the House Monotonicity Criterion page? -- {{unsigned|2A02:2F0E:605:8400:75BA:97E2:41E3:5F75}}
== 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 [[User:KelvinVoskuijl|KelvinVoskuijl]] ([[User talk: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,<ref name="BY1982">
{{cite book |title=Fair Representation: Meeting the Ideal of One Man, One Vote |last=Balinski |first=M |author2=Young HP |year=1982 |publisher=Yale Univ Pr |isbn=0-300-02724-9 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/fairrepresentati00bali }}</ref> 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. [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 22:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
| |||