New indexes for measuring electoral disproportionality

Verónica Arredondo, Miguel Martínez-Panero, Antonio Palomares, Teresa Peña, V. Ramírez
{"title":"New indexes for measuring electoral disproportionality","authors":"Verónica Arredondo, Miguel Martínez-Panero, Antonio Palomares, Teresa Peña, V. Ramírez","doi":"10.24309/RECTA.2020.21.1.04","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The number of representatives obtained by each political party in an electoral process must be a whole number. So, the percentage of votes for each party usually differs from the corresponding percentage of seats, forcing a certain unavoidable disproportionality. On the other hand, different elements of the electoral system (constituencies, thresholds, etc.) may produce some avoidable disproportionality. Those indexes traditionally used to analyse disproportionality take into account an unreachable exact proportionality as a reference. Instead, our more realistic approach quantifies distortions from a specific allotment, namely the seat distribution obtained when applying a proportional method to the total votes (that is, as if it were a unique constituency, without electoral thresholds or incentives to the winning party). Hence, we measure the avoidable disproportionality associated with such method. Unlike traditional indexes, we propose indexes associated with proportional allotment methods that can be zero in real situations. They are simple to calculate and allow us to decipher the number of seats assigned beyond the inevitable disproportionality which arises from the constraint of whole numbers. We are particularly interested in the indexes associated with Jefferson and Webster methods, which are compared to Gallagher, Loosemore-Hanby and Sainte-Laguë indexes for the results of 55 elections held in several countries.","PeriodicalId":264903,"journal":{"name":"Revista Electrónica de Comunicaciones y Trabajos de ASEPUMA","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Electrónica de Comunicaciones y Trabajos de ASEPUMA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24309/RECTA.2020.21.1.04","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The number of representatives obtained by each political party in an electoral process must be a whole number. So, the percentage of votes for each party usually differs from the corresponding percentage of seats, forcing a certain unavoidable disproportionality. On the other hand, different elements of the electoral system (constituencies, thresholds, etc.) may produce some avoidable disproportionality. Those indexes traditionally used to analyse disproportionality take into account an unreachable exact proportionality as a reference. Instead, our more realistic approach quantifies distortions from a specific allotment, namely the seat distribution obtained when applying a proportional method to the total votes (that is, as if it were a unique constituency, without electoral thresholds or incentives to the winning party). Hence, we measure the avoidable disproportionality associated with such method. Unlike traditional indexes, we propose indexes associated with proportional allotment methods that can be zero in real situations. They are simple to calculate and allow us to decipher the number of seats assigned beyond the inevitable disproportionality which arises from the constraint of whole numbers. We are particularly interested in the indexes associated with Jefferson and Webster methods, which are compared to Gallagher, Loosemore-Hanby and Sainte-Laguë indexes for the results of 55 elections held in several countries.
衡量选举不均衡的新指标
每个政党在选举过程中获得的代表人数必须是整数。因此,每个政党的得票百分比通常不同于相应的席位百分比,从而导致某种不可避免的不成比例。另一方面,选举制度的不同因素(选区、门槛等)可能产生一些可避免的不成比例。传统上用于分析不相称性的那些指数考虑到无法达到的精确比例作为参考。相反,我们更现实的方法是量化特定分配的扭曲,即在对总选票应用比例方法时获得的席位分配(也就是说,就好像它是一个独特的选区,没有选举门槛或对获胜政党的激励)。因此,我们测量与这种方法相关的可避免的歧化。与传统指标不同,我们提出了与比例分配方法相关的指标,这些指标在实际情况下可以为零。它们很容易计算,并使我们能够破译分配的席位数量,而不是由于整数的限制而产生的不可避免的不成比例。我们对杰弗逊和韦伯斯特方法相关的指数特别感兴趣,这些指数与Gallagher, Loosemore-Hanby和Sainte-Laguë指数进行了比较,这些指数是在几个国家举行的55次选举的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信