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

[Adam Tarr]

Nope, not close enough, but it gives me some new ideas on scenarios to look 
for.  Thanks.

-Adam

At 12:55 PM 2/1/2003 +0200, you wrote:
>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.
>
>
>
>----
>For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc),
>please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em


----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em