Apportionment: A Mathematical Investigation  Average Constituency: The average population per representative is

calculated to assess fairness.

Introduction to Apportionment
 Apportionment Principle: New representatives are assigned to
 Apportionment is dividing a whole into parts, rooted in the U.S.
minimise relative unfairness.
Constitution since 1790.
Apportionment Paradoxes
 The U.S. House of Representatives has historically used various
methods to apportion representatives based on population.  Alabama Paradox: A state can lose a representative when the total
number of representatives increases.
 Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson proposed the initial
competing plans for apportionment.  Population Paradox: A state with a growing population can lose a
representative due to apportionment methods.
The Hamilton Plan
 New States Paradox: The addition of a new state can lead to existing
 The Hamilton Plan uses a standard divisor to calculate the standard
states losing representatives.
quota, which is the whole number part of the population divided by
the standard divisor. Voting Systems and Their Implications

 Example: In the fictitious country of Andromeda with a population Introduction to Voting

of 20,000 and 25 representatives, the standard quota is calculated
 Voting is a fundamental democratic right, allowing citizens to elect
for each state based on its population.
representatives.
 The Hamilton Plan ensures that each state receives at least the
 The plurality voting system can lead to outcomes where the most
standard quota of representatives.
popular candidate does not have majority support.
The Jefferson Plan
Plurality Method of Voting
 The Jefferson Plan modifies the standard divisor through trial and
 In the plurality method, each voter selects one candidate, and the
error to ensure the total number of representatives equals the
candidate with the most votes wins, regardless of majority.
desired amount.
 This method does not account for alternative choices, which can
 This method can lead to different allocations compared to the
skew results.
Hamilton Plan, as it may favor larger states.
 Example: In a vote for taxi colors, red wins with 3 votes, despite not
 Example: If the modified standard divisor is set to 740, the number
having a majority.
of representatives for each state is recalculated.
Limitations of Plurality Voting
Criteria of Fairness for Apportionment Plans
 The plurality method can result in a candidate winning without
 Quota Rule: A state receives either its standard quota or one more
majority support, leading to questions about representativeness.
than its standard quota.
  Preference schedules can provide insight into voter rankings but are  It is straightforward and easy to understand, making it popular in
not utilized in plurality voting. many elections.

Case Studies in Voting Case Study: Chocolate Candy Preference

 Example: A preference schedule for chocolate candies shows  In a survey of 50 people ranking five varieties of chocolate, the
rankings from 50 voters, illustrating how plurality voting can results were compiled into a preference schedule.
determine a winner.
 To determine the winner, a table was created to count first-place
 The results of such voting can highlight the limitations of the votes for each candy variety. For example, Toffee received 20 first-
plurality method, as the most preferred option may not always win. place votes, making it the winner.

Introduction to Voting  This method can lead to outcomes where a candidate wins without
a majority, raising questions about its fairness.
Overview of Voting Systems
Borda Count Method of Voting
 Voting systems are methods used to determine the outcome of
elections based on the preferences of voters. Definition and Scoring System

 Different systems can yield different winners even with the same set  In the Borda Count, voters rank candidates, and points are assigned
of preferences, highlighting the importance of the chosen method. based on their rankings (n points for 1st choice, n-1 for 2nd, etc.).

 Common voting systems include Plurality, Borda Count, Plurality  The candidate with the highest total points wins, promoting
with Elimination, and Pairwise Comparison. consensus among voters.

Importance of Voting Methods Case Study: Juice Preference

 The choice of voting method can significantly impact election results  In a survey of 60 people ranking three juice flavors, the preference
and representation. schedule was analyzed using the Borda Count method.

 Understanding various methods helps in evaluating their fairness  Each flavor received points based on its ranking, allowing for a more
and effectiveness in reflecting voter preferences. nuanced understanding of preferences compared to the Plurality
Method.
 Historical context: Voting methods have evolved over time to
address issues of fairness and representation. Plurality with Elimination Method

Plurality Method of Voting Definition and Process

Definition and Process  This method combines elements of the Plurality and Borda Count
methods, allowing voters to express alternate preferences.
 The Plurality Method awards victory to the candidate with the most
first-place votes, regardless of whether they achieve a majority.  If no candidate receives a majority, the candidate with the fewest
votes is eliminated, and votes are redistributed until a winner
emerges.
Case Study: Juice Preference Revisited  This theorem highlights the inherent challenges in designing a fair
voting system.
 Using the same juice preference survey, the Plurality with
Elimination method was applied to determine the preferred flavor. Weighted Voting Systems

 This method can lead to different outcomes than the Plurality Definition and Examples
Method, emphasizing the importance of considering voter
 In weighted voting systems, some voters have more influence based
preferences more comprehensively.
on their share of votes, such as stockholders or members of the
Pairwise Comparison Voting Method Electoral College.

Definition and Scoring System  Examples include the United Nations Security Council and the
European Union, where voting power is not equally distributed.
 Each candidate is compared head-to-head against every other
candidate, earning points for wins, ties, or losses. Case Study: Company Shareholders

 The candidate with the most points after all comparisons is declared  A company with 100 shares and three shareholders illustrates how
the winner. weighted voting works, with different voting powers based on share
ownership.
Case Study: Head-to-Head Comparisons
 The example shows how the distribution of shares can affect
 In a hypothetical election, candidates are compared in pairs,
decision-making and power dynamics within the company.
illustrating how this method can yield different results than other
voting systems. Banzhaf Power Index

 This method is often seen as more fair, as it considers all possible Definition and Calculation
matchups between candidates.
 The Banzhaf Power Index measures a voter's power in a weighted
Fairness of Voting Methods and Arrow’s Theorem voting system, indicating how often a voter can change the outcome
by changing their vote.
Fairness Criteria
 It is calculated by identifying all winning coalitions and determining
 Majority Criterion: A candidate with a majority of first-place votes
the critical voters within those coalitions.
should win.
Practice Exercise
 Monotonicity Criterion: If a candidate wins, they should still win if
some voters change their preferences in their favor.  Given a voting system, students can practice calculating the Banzhaf
Power Index for each voter, reinforcing their understanding of power
Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem
dynamics in voting systems.
 Proposed by Kenneth Arrow in 1948, it states that no voting system
can satisfy all fairness criteria when there are three or more
candidates.