# [EM] "population paradox" using largest remainder with small # of voters?

Olli Salmi olli.salmi at uusikaupunki.fi
Sat Feb 1 02:55:21 PST 2003

```I hve this example on my page (in Finnish) at the end of the chapter on
Hare-Niemeyer. Probably not close enough for you.

19 seats
550, 470, 250, 160
7, 6, 4, 2 (7,31; 6,24; 3,32; 2,13).

550, 470, 250, 150
8, 6, 3, 2 (7,36; 6,29; 3,35; 2,01)
http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~olsalmi/vaalit/vaalimat.html

Olli Salmi

>The parameters are as follows: the regional tournament has 16 teams - this
>is fixed.  Realistically, most sections will have between 3 and 20 teams,
>with some approaching 25 or so.  6-14 or so is be the most common
>range.  Every section is guaranteed at least one bid to the regional
>tournament, provided they have at least one team, so no example should
>conclude that a section gets zero bids.  Every region has either three or
>four sections.
>
>Given these parameters (three or four "parties", between three and twenty
>"voters" in each party, sixteen "seats" in the house), can anyone come up
>with an example of the population paradox playing out?  Barring the
>presence of such an example, all I can do is show a case where the results
>differ from Webster's method, and try to argue that it's less proportional
>as a result.  But this is a lot less convincing.

----