Impossibility Result
In 1982 two mathematicians, Michel Balinski and Peyton Young, proved that any method of apportionment will result in paradoxes whenever there are three or more parties (or states, regions, etc.). More precisely, their theorem states that there is no apportionment system that has the following properties (as the example we take the division of seats between parties in a system of proportional representation):
- It follows the quota rule: Each of the parties gets one of the two numbers closest to its fair share of seats (if the party's fair share is 7.34 seats, it gets either 7 or 8).
- It does not have the Alabama paradox: If the total number of seats is increased, no party's number of seats decreases.
- It does not have the population paradox: If party A gets more votes and party B gets fewer votes, no seat will be transferred from A to B.
Read more about this topic: Apportionment Paradox
Famous quotes containing the word result:
“That we can come here today and in the presence of thousands and tens of thousands of the survivors of the gallant army of Northern Virginia and their descendants, establish such an enduring monument by their hospitable welcome and acclaim, is conclusive proof of the uniting of the sections, and a universal confession that all that was done was well done, that the battle had to be fought, that the sections had to be tried, but that in the end, the result has inured to the common benefit of all.”
—William Howard Taft (18571930)