Fair Representation¶
Balinski, M. L., & Young, H. P. (1982). Fair Representation: Meeting the Ideal of One Man, One Vote. Yale University Press.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
- Alabama Paradox
- The name comes from the 1880 US congressional reapportionment, where the Census Office computations showed Alabama would receive 8 seats in a 299-seat House but only 7 seats in a 300-seat House under the Hamilton method then in use
This sourceBalinski and Young's history, in which the Alabama paradox is a named anomaly of Hamilton's method and population and new-state changes have their own chapters. Balinski and Young's history of the Alabama paradox under Hamilton's method in the 1880 apportionment.
Supported in partVerified against the source
- The name comes from the 1880 US congressional reapportionment, where the Census Office computations showed Alabama would receive 8 seats in a 299-seat House but only 7 seats in a 300-seat House under the Hamilton method then in use
- Apportionment Paradox
- A quota-respecting rule — one that always gives each claimant either the floor or the ceiling of its exact fractional entitlement — will satisfy the quota property but must permit at least one of the three paradoxes; a divisor method — Jefferson's, Webster's, Hill-Huntington's — avoids all three paradox types but may assign a state fewer seats than its exact entitlement's floor or more than its ceiling
This sourceStating the quota rule that a claimant should get no more than its quota rounded up and no less than its quota rounded down, and naming the Jefferson, Webster and Hill-Huntington divisor methods. Balinski and Young (1982) established the incompatibility of quota with the monotonicity properties. Balinski and Young (1982) document quota violations in US House apportionment history. Balinski and Young (1982) treat US House apportionment as the central case of the quota-versus-divisor debate. Balinski and Young (1982) show that the conflicting properties make rule-by-rule testing unable to settle apportionment.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
“The Methods of [Jefferson] and Hamilton : The Method of [Webster]”
- A quota-respecting rule — one that always gives each claimant either the floor or the ceiling of its exact fractional entitlement — will satisfy the quota property but must permit at least one of the three paradoxes; a divisor method — Jefferson's, Webster's, Hill-Huntington's — avoids all three paradox types but may assign a state fewer seats than its exact entitlement's floor or more than its ceiling
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 2 of 2 citations: 2 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:b12c7c27e21c · see in the full table