<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1250">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I am finishing an article on apportionment/seat
allocation and I would like to make some things clear. Please correct me if I am
wrong in any of the facts below. I also would apreciate any comment on
this, because I find it quite strange.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I understand that in 19th century European
scientists were not aware of American research. But what really surprises me is
that in 1990 European research and even American Political Science research did
not know (at list they don't cite it) that it has all been invented already.
Therefore:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>1. Jefferson Method (1791) was reinvented in Europe
by Victor D'Hondt (1878).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>2. Hamilton Method (1791) was reinvented in Europe
by Hare.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>3. Webster Method (1832) was reinvented in Europe
by Saint-Lague.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>4. The discussion about the "most proportional"
method followed in Europe, too, and...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>5. American National Academy of Sciences in 1920
concuded that none of the methods is "most" proportional, because it all depends
on how we measure the discrepancies from ideal proportionality.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>European research came to exactly same
conclusion around 1985-1991 without even mentioning the one from 1920.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>(see Gallagher (1991). Proportionality,
Disproportionality and Electoral Systems. Electoral Studies 10:1, 33-51.
Something also Lijphard (1985)The Field of Electoral Systems Research: A
Critical Survey. Electoral Studies 4:1, 3-14).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I'll be grateful for any comments.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Jure</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>