Basic #
We define basic notions related to apportionment methods, such as elections, apportionments, apportionment rules, and properties of apportionment rules. We also prove the Balinski-Young impossibility theorem.
All definitions follow those given in a textbook by F. Pukelsheim [Puk17]. Distinction between weak and strong exactness is added, following [PPR16].
Main definitions #
ElectionApportionmentRuleIsAnonymousIsBalancedIsConcordantIsDecentIsExactIsQuotaRuleIsPopulationMonotone
Main statements #
IsConcordant_of_IsPopulationMonotone: anonymity and population monotonicity imply concordance.balinski_young: Balinski-Young impossibility theorem.
References #
An apportionment is a vector of natural numbers representing the number of seats allocated to each party (at the corresponding index).
Equations
Instances For
An apportionment rule is a function that, given an election, returns a set of apportionments satisfying three properties:
- Non-emptiness: there is at least one apportionment returned;
- Inheritance of zeros: parties with zero votes are allocated zero seats;
- House size feasibility: the total number of seats allocated is equal to the house size.
- res {n : ℕ} : Election n → Finset (Apportionment n)
- house_size_feasibility {n : ℕ} (election : Election n) (App : Apportionment n) : App ∈ self.res election → Vector.sum App = election.houseSize
Instances For
A rule is anonymous if permuting the votes of the parties permutes the allocation of seats in the same way.
Instances
A rule is balanced if whenever two parties have the same number of votes, then the difference in the number of seats allocated to them is at most one.
Instances
A rule is concordant if whenever one party has fewer votes than another, then it is allocated no more seats than that other party.
Instances
A rule is decent if scaling the number of votes for each party by the same positive integer does not change the apportionment.
Instances
A rule is weakly exact if every Apportionment, when viewed as an input vote distribution
Election.votes, is reproduced as the unique solution.
Instances
A rule is a quota rule if the number of seats allocated to each party is either the floor or the ceiling of its Hare-quota.
Instances
A rule is population monotone (or vote ratio monotone) if population paradoxes do not occur.
A population paradox occurs when the support for party i increases at a faster rate than that for
party j, but i loses seats while j gains seats.
- population_monotone {n : ℕ} (election₁ election₂ : Election n) (i j : Fin n) : election₁.houseSize = election₂.houseSize → election₂.votes[i] * election₁.votes[j] > election₂.votes[j] * election₁.votes[i] → ∀ App₁ ∈ rule.res election₁, ∀ App₂ ∈ rule.res election₂, ¬(App₁[i] > App₂[i] ∧ App₁[j] < App₂[j])
Instances
If an anonymous rule is population monotone, then it is concordant.
Balinski-Young impossibility theorem: If an anonymous rule is a quota rule, then it is not population monotone. Thus, no apportionment method can satisfy both properties simultaneously.