Paradoxes

Michael A. Jones (), David McCune () and Jennifer M. Wilson ()
Additional contact information
Michael A. Jones: American Mathematical Society
David McCune: William Jewell College
Jennifer M. Wilson: Eugene Lang College, The New School

Chapter Chapter 6 in Delegate Apportionment in the US Presidential Primaries, 2023, pp 127-185 from Springer

Abstract: Abstract In this chapter, we catalog the paradoxes to which the seven delegateDelegate apportionment methods are susceptible. Because all of the methods used in the Democratic and Republican primaries are quota-based, they are susceptible to classical paradoxes like the Alabama and population paradoxesPopulation paradox. The methods also suffer from other paradoxes that are more relevant in the context of delegateDelegate apportionment such as the elimination and aggregation paradoxesAggregation paradox. We evaluate the extent to which each method is susceptible to each paradox. We use simulations, data from recent presidential primaries, and simplicial geometrySimplicial geometry to investigate the likelihood that each paradox occurs. For each paradox, we focus on which candidates are most likely to be affected and on the effect of thresholds.

Date: 2023
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:stcchp:978-3-031-24954-9_6

Ordering information: This item can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/9783031249549

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-24954-9_6

Access Statistics for this chapter

More chapters in Studies in Choice and Welfare from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().