Documentation

Apportionmentlib.Basic

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 #

Main statements #

References #

An election with a vector of votes for n parties (at the corresponding indices) and the total number of seats to be allocated.

Instances For
    def Apportionmentlib.instDecidableEqElection.decEq {n✝ : } (x✝ x✝¹ : Election n✝) :
    Decidable (x✝ = x✝¹)
    Equations
    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
    Instances For
      @[reducible, inline]

      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:

        1. Non-emptiness: there is at least one apportionment returned;
        2. Inheritance of zeros: parties with zero votes are allocated zero seats;
        3. House size feasibility: the total number of seats allocated is equal to the house size.
        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.

                      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.