Republic of the Philippines

BACOLOD CITY COLLEGE

Taculing Road, Bacolod City, 6100, Email:[email protected]
Taculing Campus, (034)707-7469, Sum-ag Campus,(034) 704-5843,
Fortune Towne Campus,(034) 704-5844
Tel #: (034) 707-7469

Teacher Education Department

First Semester /S.Y. 2020-2021

(Seventh Module)
Week 14 & 15

Course Code: GE4 Instructor: Glenda C. Steffan, LPT, MAEd

Course Title: Mathematics in the Modern World Class: BEED 1A & BEED 1B
Course Description:
This course aims to discuss the nature of mathematics leading to appreciation of its practical, intellectual, social, and aesthetic dimensions. It
includes the study of the nature of mathematics and how the perception of this leads to different tools for understanding and dealing with
various aspects of present day living such as managing personal finances, making social choices, appreciating geometric designs,
understanding codes used in data transmissions and security, and dividing limited resources fairly.

Overview
This module provides discussion of the concepts on apportionment and voting, common methods of apportionment and voting and
practical examples on the use of apportionment and voting.
 Module 7
Apportionment and Voting
There are many decisions people make in life every day. There are a lot of situations where a consensus has to be made. For instance,
when a family decides which house to buy, every member of the family is given the chance to say something regarding the choices. It is
important that the decision of the majority prevails. When a democratic country decides who will govern the country, province, city, town or
barangay, an election is held. Assuming that the election is fair, the winner is the product of the decision of the majority. When a group of
friends decide where to go for a summer outing, or decide where to eat dinner on special occasions, the majority’s decision will be allowed.
In the given situations, the winner is decided or voted upon to reflect the preference of everyone involved in the decision-making
process.
Objectives: At the end of this module, the students are expected must be able to:
1. familiarize the concepts on apportionment and voting; (K)
2. enumerate the common methods of apportionment and voting; and (S)
3. give practical examples on the use of apportionment and voting. (C)

Topic 1: VOTING

A voting or electoral system is the new way we pick our representatives. The type of system we use sets the rules for how our
politicians behave, whether our governments represent us and whether we can hold them to account if they let us down.
COMMON METHODS OF VOTING SYSTEM
1. The Plurality Method
This is the most common method to determine the winner in an election. Every qualified voter is tasked to vote for the candidate of his
or her choice and the candidate with the most number of votes is declared the winner, or the choice with the most first-preference votes is
declared the winner. It is possible to have ties and the tie has to be settled.

Example #1:
A certain national organization is to implement a new logo. Members were asked to make designs and submit them for voting by the
general membership. Five designs from 50 different designs were chosen by the board of directors. These designs were just numbered and
the voters did not know who designed each of them. A total of 400 members of good standing were present during the selection. After voting,
the results were tallied. The tally results are as follows:
Logo Design 1 Design 2 Design 3 Design 4 Design 5
Frequency 25 48 17 15 295
Percentage 6.25% 12% 4.25% 3.75% 73.75%
Solution:
Notice that design number 5 got the highest number of votes; thus, design number 5 is declared the winner.

In addition to design 5 receiving the most number of votes, it also gained more than 50% OF THE VOTES CAST, In fact, only 26.25% of
the votes were for the other four designs.

Example #2:
Suppose that the result of the voting in example#1 looks like this.

Logo Design 1 Design 2 Design 3 Design 4 Design 5

Frequency 80 76 78 80 86
Percentage 20% 19% 19.5% 20% 21.5%

Solution:
Since design number 5 got the highest number of votes, it should be declared the winner. Although it is the winner, it did not get a
majority vote. Almost 80% of the votes did not did not like design number 5. This type of situation is very difficult when deciding for an
elective official in government. Imagine, if you are the winner in an election like this and more than 50% of the people who voted do not
support you, it will be a big problem of governance.

2. The Plurality with Elimination Method

As you have seen in the preceding example, the “plurality method” may produce a winner even if majority of the votes did not vote for
the winner. This situation can be resolved by eliminating the candidates with the lowest votes and then holding another election. If the
number of voters is not too big as in the national election, say a national organization with less than a thousand voters. This is called the
plurality with elimination method of voting. If another election is done, naturally the supporters who voted for the eliminated candidate
will have to vote for their next choice. If the result does not produce a majority winner, then the process of elimination is repeated until the
winner has obtained the majority of the votes.
The plurality with elimination method has some defects and one of them is what is called the monotonicity criterion. This criterion
states that if a candidate wins an election, and a re-election is held which the only changes in voting favour the original winning candidate,
then that candidate should still win the re-election.
Example #3:
Consider the problem in the previous example. Since design 2 obtained the lowest number of votes, design 2 will be eliminated from the
list and another election will be held. The results are shown in the table below:

Logo Design 1 Design 3 Design 4 Design 5

Frequency 90 85 100 125
Percentage 22.5% 21.25% 25% 31.25%

Solution:
From the result, design 5 is still the winner as it got the highest number of votes. But, based on the percentage, it did not get the
majority of votes since it is less than 50%. So, another elimination needs to be done.
After elimination, the result are as shown in the table below:
Logo Design 1 Design 4 Design 5
Frequency 90 95 215
Percentage 22.5% 23.75% 53.75%
From these results, design 5 is the winner as it got the highest number of votes and it has obtained the majority (more than 50%) of the
votes. Hence, design 5 is now declared the winner and the election is over.

3. The Ranked-Choice or Instant Runoff Method

This method of voting is used when voters are asked to rank all the candidates or choices. That is, the voters write their first choice,
second choice, up to fifth choice if there are five candidates or choices. The candidate receiving the majority of the first-choice (or rank 1 vote)
is declared the winner. If no candidate receives a majority, then the candidate with the fewest-choice or rank 1 votes is eliminated. The votes
for the eliminated candidate are given to the next preferred candidate. This continues until a winner is declared. The winner must have the
majority of first-choice or rank 1 votes.
Instant runoff voting is a modification of the plurality method that attempts to address the issue of insincere voting.

Example #4:
Five department heads are tasked to choose 1 from 3 applicants (A, B, and C) for a management position of their company. These three
are the remaining applicants from a list of 1,000 applicants after a series of tests and interviews. The five department heads were to rank
them according to their preference. The results of the ranking are shown in the following table:
 Head 1 Head 2 Head 3 Head 4 Head 5
Rank 1 A A B A C
Rank 2 B C C C A
Rank 3 C B A B B

Solution:
Very clear from the results, applicants A is the winner as he has received 3 rank 1 votes from the 5 department heads. This method
imposes no problem if only a few do the rankings.
But how do we apply this method when the number of those who will do the ranking is increased? Let us find out from Example #5.

Example #5:
A company is deciding where to have their summer outing. There are 100 employees who are eligible to attend this outing for free. They
have three destinations to choose from (Beach, Pool, or Falls). How is the destination selected using the ranked-choice method?
Solution:
Since there are three choices, there are 6 ways to rank them using permutations; that is,
3! 6
P33 = = =6
( 3−3 ) ! 1
The following table shows the possible rankings of the three choices.
1st choice B B P P F F
2nd choice P F B F B P
3rd choice F P F B P B
Let us say that after the 100 employees finished their ranking, the results are shown in the following preference table:
Number of Ballots Cast 43
Beach: 25 + 18 = 43 = = 43%
25 18 14 10 14 19 100
To determine the number
1st choice B B P P F F of first-choice votes, of
2 choice
nd
P F B F B P Pool: 10 + 14 = 24 = 24%
first-choice votes,
3rd choice F P F B P B Falls: 14 + 19 = 33 = 33%
From the preference table above, notice that the total of the row numbers is equivalent to the 100 employees who did the rankings. If
you take the percentage of first-choice votes, you will have 43%, 24%, and 33%, respectively. The results showed that there is no majority in
the decision. You can proceed using the plurality with elimination method so that no further ranking is done. Modify the preference table to
eliminate the Pool since it is the one with the lowest percentage of first-choice votes.
So eliminating the Pool as a destination, the modified table looks like this:
57
Beach: 25 + 18 + 14 = 57 = =
100
To determine the number
 Number of Ballots Cast
25 18 14 10 14 19
1 choice
st
B B B F F F
2nd choice F F F B B B

Therefore, the Beach is now the winner and it is a majority decision.

4. The Borda Count

The Borda count is another voting method, named after Jean-Charles de Borda who developed the system in 1770. The basis of this
method is the instant runoff method. Instead of tallying the first-choice votes only, in this method, tally each first-choice votes, second-choice
votes, third-choice votes, and so on. Each voter ranks all of the candidates. That is, each voter selects a first-choice, a second-choice, a third-
choice, and so on depending on the number of candidates. If there are n candidates, then a candidate receives n point for the first-choice, n-1
points for each second-choice, n-2 points for each of the third choice, and so on. The candidate with the most total votes is declared the
winner.
The Borda count is commonly used in awarding sports awards in North America. Variations of this method are used to determine the
Most Valuable Player (MVP) in baseball, to rank teams in NCAA sports, and to award the Heisman trophy.
The Borda count is often described as a consensus-based voting system rather than a “majoritarian” one.

Example #6:
Consider the example in the instant runoff method with this tally table:
Number of Ballots Cast
25 18 14 10 14 19
1 choice
st
B B P P F F
2nd choice P F B F B P
3rd choice F P F B P B
Solution:

Step 1: Tally the votes for each choice. Since there are three destinations, (candidates) to choose from, each first-choice vote is worth 3
points, each second-choice vote is worth 2 points, and each third-choice vote is worth 1 point.
Beach Pool Falls
1 choice
st
25 + 18 = 43 votes 14 + 10 = 24 votes 14 + 19 = 33 votes
2nd choice 14 + 14 = 28 votes 25 + 19 = 44 votes 18 + 10 = 28 votes
3rd choice 10 + 19 = 29 votes 18 + 14 = 32 votes 25 + 14 = 39 votes

Step 2: Determine the score of each candidate. This is done by multiplying the number of votes by the appropriate points.
Beach Pool Falls
1 choice ( 3 points each)
st
(43)(3) = 129 points (24)(3) = 72 points (33)(3) = 99 points
2nd choice ( 2 points each) (28)(2) = 56 points (44)(2) = 88 points (28)(2) = 56 points
3rd choice ( 1 point each) (29)(1) = 29 points (32)(1) = 32 points (39)(1) = 39 points
214 points
TOTAL POINTS Winner – highest 192 points 194 points
total points

4. The Pairwise Comparison Method

This method is otherwise known as Copeland’s method. Pairwise comparison only means one-to-one comparison. In this method, each
pair of candidates is compared, using all preferences to determine which of the two is most preferred. For each possible pair of candidates, the
1
candidate with the most votes gets 1 point. If there is a tie, each candidate gets point. After all pairwise comparison are made, the
2
candidate with the most points is declared the winner.
For n candidates, combinations can be used to determine the number of comparisons; that is:
n! n(n−1)
C2n = = possible comparisons.
( n−2 ) ! 2 ! 2
Say, if there are 3 candidates:

3(3−1) 3(2) 6 5(5−1) 5(4 ) 20

C23 = = = 2 = 3 pairwise comparisons. If there are 5 candidates, then C 25 = = = 2 = 10 pairwise
2 2 2 2
comparisons.
Example #7:
Consider the example given regarding a company’s summer outing, where 100 employees are asked to rank their choices (Beach, Pool,
Falls) for their free summer outing. The tally table is shown below.

Number of Ballots Cast

25 18 14 10 14 19
1st choice B B P P F F
2nd choice P F B F B P
3rd choice F P F B P B

Solution:
Since there are three destinations (candidates), there are 3 pairwise comparisons you can make. Compare Beach versus Pool, Beach
versus Falls, and Pool versus Falls.

Pairwise Beach total Pool total

Comparison
Beach vs Pool 25 18 14 57 14 10 19 43
Comparing B (Beach) and P (Pool), 57 voters preferred B over P. Hence, B receives 1 point.

Pairwise Beach total Falls total

Comparison
Beach vs Falls 25 18 14 57 10 14 19 43

Voters preferred B over F, so B gets 1 point.

Pairwise Pool total Falls total

Comparison
Pool vs Falls 25 14 10 49 18 14 19 43
Voters prefer F over P by a vote of 51 to 49. So F gets 1 point.

Finally, since B receives 2 points out of the 3 pairwise comparisons, B is declared as the winner. P was not preferred in any of the comparisons.

5. Voting Criteria
Political scientists and mathematicians have created a list of criteria that any “fair” voting system should meet. Unfortunately, not all
voting systems satisfy all these criteria. For example, the Borda Count method might violate the majority criterion at times. Also, in a pairwise
comparison, a candidate might be declared an overall winner even if that candidate was not preferred in every possible head-to-head
comparison. In some circumstances, a candidate might win an election, but on the removal of other candidates for re-election due to “non-
majority vote”, another candidate might be declared the winner.
Each of the voting systems discussed had been studied by any mathematicians and political scientists to have violated at least one of
the following four criteria. In 1951, Kenneth Arrow proved that it is NOT possible to create a voting system that satisfies all of the following
fairness criteria. This result is known as “Arrow’s impossibility theorem”. This theorem states that “It is impossible to create any
system of voting (involving three or more candidates) that satisfy all the four fairness criterias.”

5.1 Majority Criterion – A candidate should be declared a winner if that candidate obtains the majority of the votes.
5.2 Condorcet Criterion (or Head-to-Head Criterion) – If there is a choice that is preferred in every one-to-one comparison with the other
choices, should be declared the winner. The winner is called the Condorcet winner, or Condorcet candidate.
5.3 Monotonicity Criterion – If voters change their votes to increase the preference for a candidate, it should not harm that candidate’s
chances of winning.
5.4 Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives (HA) Criterion – If a non-winning choice is removed from the ballot, it should not change the winner
of the election. Equivalently, if choice A is preferred over choice B, introducing or removing a choice C should not cause B to be preferred over
A.

6. Approval Voting
There is another method of voting that can be more appropriate in some decision-making scenarios. This is the approval voting. With
approval voting, the ballot asks the voter to mark all choices that he or she finds acceptable. The results are tallied, and the option with the
most approval is the winner.

Example #8:

Myrn Neon Virgi Dann Norm Mann Josie Merl Rex Elena
a y e y a y a
Almost a Love Story x x x x x x x x
Dear Dictator x x x x x x
A Quiet Place x x x x x x
Status Update x x x x x x

A group of friends is trying to decide what movie to watch after work. Four choices are provided, and each person is asked to mark with
an “x” which movies they are willing to watch. The results are as shown below:

Tallying the results,

Almost a Love Story received 8 approvals
Dear Dictator received 6 approvals
A Quiet Place received 6 approvals
Status Update received 6 approvals
 In this vote, Almost a Love Story would be the winner.
Approval voting can very easily violate the majority criterion.

Example #9:
Consider the voting schedule below:
80 15 5
1 choice
st
A B C
2nd choice B C B
3rdchoice C A A

Clearly, A is the majority winner. Now, suppose that this election was held using the approval voting, and every voter marked approval
of their two candidates.
A would receive approval from 80 voters
B would receive approval from 100 voters
C would receive approval from 20 voters

B would be the winner. Some argue that approval voting tends to vote the least-disliked choice, rather than the most-liked candidate.

7. Tie Breaking
Regardless of the voting method used in an election, there is always the possibility of a tie between two or more candidates. There are
various methods than can be employed to break the tie and the method should be decided before the election or stated as part of the election
rules. Some suggestions may be the toss coin and raffle draw (drawing from a box or jar). The use of the third party judge can be considered
as well or any other means as long as it is agreed upon by all parties concerned.

Activity 1:
1. A certain Barangay has 4 candidates, Mr. W, Mr. X, Mr. Y, and Mr. Z for the position of barangay captain in the barangay election. The tally
of voting schedule is given in the following table.
Number of Ballots Cast
424 194 149 159 156 198 175 205
1st choice X X Y Y Z Z W W
2 choice
nd
Y Z X X W Y X Z
3rd choice Z W W Z Y X Z X
4 choice
th
W Y Z W X W Y Y
a. How many voters participated in the election? _________
 b. Who is the winner using the plurality method?
c. Who is the winner using the plurality with elimination method?
d. Who is the winner using the runoff method?
e. Who is the winner using Borda method?
Topic 2: APPORTIONMENT

Apportionment is an act of distributing or apportioning; distribution according to a plan. It is the process of allocating political power
among a set of principles (or defined constituencies). In most representative governments, political power has most recently been apportioned
among constituencies based on population, but there is a long history of different approaches.

METHODS OF APPORTIONMENT

I. The Alexander Hamilton’s Method

This method of apportionment was proposed by Alexander Hamilton; was approved by the US Congress in 1791, but President
Washington vetoed it. In 1852, it was adopted by the US Congress until 1911. This method is also used for legislative elections in Russia,
Ukraine, Tunisia, and Hong Kong.
The Hamilton method of apportionment is actually a largest-remainder method which uses the Hare quota. It is named after Alexander
Hamilton, who invented the largest-remainder method in 1792. It was first adopted to apportion the US House of Representative every ten
years between 1852 and 1900. It is used for legislative elections in Russia (with 5% exclusion threshold since 2016), Ukraine (5% threshold),
Tunisia, Namibia, and Hong Kong.
This method can determine how many representatives each state can get by following these steps:

1. Determine how many people each representative should represent. Do this by dividing the total population of all the states by the total
number of representatives. This answer is called the standard divisor.

total population∈the group

SD = be apportioned ¿
total number ¿

2. Divide each state’s population by the divisor to determine how many representatives it should have. Record this answer to several
decimal places. This answer is called the standard quota.

population ∈the group

SQ = SD

3. Cut off all decimal parts of all the quotas (but don’t forget what the decimals were). These are called the lower quotas. Add up the
remaining whole numbers. This answer will always be less than or equal to the total number of representatives (and the “or equal to”
part happens only in very specific circumstances that are incredibly unlikely to turn up).
 4. Assuming that the total from Step 3 was less than the total number of representatives, assign the remaining representatives, one each,
to the states whose decimal parts of the quota were largest, until the desired total is reached.

Make sure that each state ends up with at least one representative!

Example #1:
The second floor of Brandon Hospital houses five intensive care units: Medical (M), Surgical (S), Cardiac (C), Transitional (T), and
Progressive (P). The maximum number of patients that each unit can house is shown in the table below. The total for all units is 90. The
hospital bought to 50 recliners to be distributed among the five units. Use the Hamilton Method to apportion the 50 recliners on the basis of
the number of patients.

Unit Patients
Medical 15
Surgical 30
Cardiac 12
Transitional 8
Progressive 25
Totals 90

Solution:
total population∈the group 90
SD =
total number ¿
be apportioned ¿ = 50
= 1.8

Patient population ∈the group Rounded Actual Number

Unit SQ =
s SD Down
15
Medical 15 = 8.33 8 8
1.8
30
Surgical 30 = 16.67 16 16 + 1 = 17
1.8
12
Cardiac 12 = 6.67 6 6+1=7
1.8
8
Transitional 8 = 4.44 4 4
1.8
 25
Progressive 25 = 13.89 13 13 + 1 = 14
1.8

Totals 90 50 47 50
II. Jefferson’s Method

When Hamilton’s vetoed by Washington, Thomas Jefferson proposed a different method of apportionment. The Jefferson’s method was
adopted by the US Congress from 1791 through 1842. This method is very favorable to large states as this large states will be represented by
a larger number of representatives.
The first step of Jefferson’s method are the same as Hamilton’s method. The standard divisor and the standard quota are determined.
The decimal parts of the quota are cut off in the same manner as the Hamilton’s method. This gives the total number of representatives that is
less than the required total.
If the sum of the quota is less than the desired number of representative, the Jefferson’s method differs in the manner in which the
remaining representatives are determined. According to Jefferson, if the standard divisor is too big, the quota must be too small. So, the
divisor must be made smaller. Then, find the sum of the whole number parts of the quota. This process continues until the required number of
representatives is obtained.
Here is the summary of steps in Jefferson’s method of apportionment.

1. Divide the total population of all states by the total number of representatives to determine how many people each representative
should represent. The quotient is called the standard divisor.

2. Determine the quota by dividing each state’s population by the standard divisor. The quotient is recorded to several decimal places.

3. All the decimal parts (lower quotas) of all the quotas are cut off. These lower quotas must be recorded as they will be needed later. The
whole number parts of the quota are added. The results will always be less than or equal to the total number of representatives.

4. If the sum in Step 3 is less than the total number of representatives, reduce the divisor and recalculate the quota and allocation.
Continue doing this until the total in Step 3 is equal to the total number of representatives. The divisor you end up using is called the
modified divisor or adjusted divisor.
Example #2:
The second floor of Brandon Hospital Houses five intensive care units: Medical (M), Surgical (S), Cardiac (C), Transitional (T), and
Progressive (P). The maximum number of patients that each unit can house is shown in the table below. The total for all units is 90. The
hospital bought to 50 recliners to be distributed among the five units. Use the Hamilton Method to apportion the 50 recliners on the basis of
the number of patients.

Unit Patients
Medical 15
Surgical 30
Cardiac 12
Transitional 8
Progressive 25
Totals 90

Solution:

Patient population ∈the group Rounded Modified Rounded

Unit SQ =
s SD Down Quota Down
15 15
Medical 15 = 8.33 8 = 8.82 8
1.8 1.7
30 30
Surgical 30 = 16.67 16 = 17.65 17
1.8 1.7
12 12
Cardiac 12 = 6.67 6 = 7.06 7
1.8 1.7
8 8
Transitional 8 = 4.44 4 = 4.71 4
1.8 1.7
25 25
Progressive 25 = 13.89 13 = 14.71 14
1.8 1.7

Totals 90 50 47 50 50
Note that the sum of the rounded down numbers in the last column adds up to 50 as required.

III. Webster’s Method

This method of apportionment was proposed by Daniel Webster (1782-1852). It is similar to Jefferson’s method. The US Congress
adopted this method in 1842 but in 1852, Hamilton’s method replaced it. It was again adopted in 1901.
Webster’s method differs from Jefferson’s method by rounding off the quotas to the nearest whole number instead of dropping off the
decimal portion of the quotas. If the sum of the rounded off parts of the quotas does not produce the desired number of representatives, the
divisor is adjusted. This is done until the desired number is obtained.
Here is the summary of steps in Webster’s method of apportionment.

1. The SD is computed by dividing the total population of all the states by the total number of representatives.
2. The quota is then computed by dividing each state’s population by the divisor to determine how many representatives each state should
have. The quota is recorded to several decimals.
3. The quota are rounded to the nearest whole numbers. Then, the whole numbers are added. If the sum of the whole numbers is less that
the total number of desired representatives, the SD is reduced. If the sum of the whole numbers is larger than the total number of
desired representatives, the divisor is increased and the quota is recalculated. This process is continued until the total number of
desired representatives is obtained. The divisor that gives the desired number of representatives is called the modified divisor or
adjusted divisor.

Example #3:
Use the Webster’s method to apportion the five steps shown with their respective populations in the 1830 census in the table below. The
modified divisor MD selected by Webster was 49 800, and the total population was 12 860 702.

State Populatio
n
New York 1 918 608
Pennsylvani 1 348 233
a
Kentucky 687 917
Vermont 280 652
Louisiana 215 739
Solution:

The modified quota MQ is found by dividing the state population by 49 800.

State Populatio MQ Apportionme

n nt
New York 1 918 608 1918 608
= 38.53 39
49 800
Pennsylvani 1 348 233 1348 233
= 27.07 27
a 49 800
Kentucky 687 917 687 917
= 13.81 14
49 800
Vermont 280 652 280 652
= 5.64 6
49 800
Louisiana 215 739 215739
= 4.33 4
49 800

IV. Adam’s Method

This method of apportionment was proposed by John Quincy Adams in 1822. Adams proposes this apportionment method by using a
modified divisor. Compared to the Jefferson’s method, it uses a modified divisor that is less than the SD, and the MD is truncated (rounded
down) to a whole number (lower modified quota)
John Adam’s method is the exact opposite of Jefferson’s method. According to Adam’s method, once the SD is found, this divisor is
increased by an amount such that when the state allocations are rounded upward, they add up to the exact number of desired
representatives. That is, if the SQ is an exact integer, add 1 to the SQ to determine the upper quota; otherwise, the upper quota is simply the
standard (modified) quota rounded upward.
Here is the summary of steps in Adam’s method of apportionment.
 1. Divide the standard quotas and upper quotas by the total population by the SD.
2. Add the upper quotas (whole number parts of the SQs). If the sum of the upper quotas equals the total number of seats to be
apportioned, the apportionment process is complete.
3. If the sum of the upper quotas does not equal to the total number of seats to be apportioned, choose MD greater than the SD and
calculate the modified quotas and upper modified quotas.
4. Repeat step 3 until you find the MD such that the sum of the upper modified quotas equals the total number of seats to be apportioned.
Each state receives a number of seats equal to its upper quota, and the apportionment process is complete.

Example #4:
The second floor of Brandon Hospital Houses five intensive care units: Medical (M), Surgical (S), Cardiac (C), Transitional (T), and
Progressive (P). The maximum number of patients that each unit can house is shown in the table below. The total for all units is 90. The
hospital bought to 50 recliners to be distributed among the five units. Use the Hamilton Method to apportion the 50 recliners on the basis of
the number of patients.

Unit Patients
Medical 15
Surgical 30
Cardiac 12
Transitional 8
Progressive 25
Totals 90

Solution:
1. We have to find the modified “magic” divisor. Recall that in Example #1the SD 1.8 was slightly lowered to 1.7 to obtain the desired MQ.
If the MQ is rounded up, the sum will be 9 + 18 + 8 + 5 + 15 = 55. To reduce this number, let us increase the divisor to 1.9 and a round
up quota as shown in table below:

Patient Modified Rounded Up

Unit
s Quota
15
Medical 15 = 7.89 8
1.9
30
Surgical 30 = 15.79 16
1.9
 12
Cardiac 12 = 6.32 7
1.9
8
Transitional 8 = 4.21 5
1.9
25
Progressive 25 = 13.16 14
1.9

Totals 90 50 50

2. Our modified “magic” divisor 1.9 did the trick; the rounded-up values, which correspond.
3. The number or recliners each will get, add up to 50.
Summary of the methods:
Hamilton’s Method Down to the nearest integer Distribute left-over items to the
groups with the largest fractional
part until all the items are
distributed.
Jefferson’s Method MD is less than SD Down to the nearest integer Apportion to each group its
modified lower quota.
Webster’s Method MD is less than, greater than, or To the nearest integer Apportion to each group its
equal to SD modified rounded quota.
Adam’s Method MD is greater than SD Up to the nearest integer Apportion to each group its
modified upper quota.

Weighted Voting System is an electoral system in which not all voters have the same amount of influence over the outcome of an election.
Instead, votes of different voters are given different weights. This type of electoral system is used in shareholders meetings, where votes are
weighted by the number of shares that each shareholder owns.

Activity #2

A certain province has hired 42 new medical doctors to be assigned to the 12 medical health clinics across the province. The Provincial
Medical Health Officer felt that assigning an equal number of doctors to each health clinic will not be productive because there are health
clinics with a small number of patients based on average number of patients coming to the clinic. The current populations of the town where
the municipal health clinics is located are given in the following table.

Town Population
M 9 758
 N 15 231
O 23 148
P 28 148
Q 29 225
R 31 969
S 34 458
T 34 544
U 39 237
V 76 153
W 131 188
X 142 456
How should the 42 medical doctors be assigned? Use all the 4 different methods of apportionment and compare the results.

VI. REFERENCES
Recto “Rex” M. Calingasan,et al. Mathematics in the Modern World

Romeo M. Daligdig, Mathematics in the Modern World

https://marinmathcircledotorg.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/mmcadv-20120111-votinglecture-ernestodiaz.pdf