[EM] Extent of quota violation in Webster

[Toby Pereira]

Webster's mathematically equivalent to Sainte-Laguë isn't it? I don't see why there should be a limit. Let's say you have 100 representatives, and one state has 1% of the population and therefore you'd expect the state to have one representative. This state could win all the representatives, however. To win the 100th representative, it's population would have to be over 199 times as great as any other state. This could happen if there were enough states (about 20,000). And there's no limit to how far you can take this either in terms of lowering the percentage of the population in the largest state, or increasing the number of representatives.
 
      From: Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km_elmet at t-online.de>
 To: EM <election-methods at lists.electorama.com> 
 Sent: Monday, 5 January 2015, 22:57
 Subject: [EM] Extent of quota violation in Webster
   
It's well known that Webster may violate quota. But (because of my 
investigations into more sophisticated "manageable" party list methods), 
I'm curious as to how far from quota it can go.

Does anyone know how severe a quota violation Webster can have? Is it 
limited to one seat maximum due to the locally optimal allocation 
property of Webster itself - i.e. that you can't alter a single 
assignment and make everybody better off? Or can Webster violate quota 
to a greater extent than this?
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info


   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20150105/a6a04455/attachment.htm>