Apportionment paradox
Definition
The apportionment paradox occurs when a change in the total number of items to be apportioned, or changes in the distribution criteria, leads to unexpected or counterintuitive results. This is often seen in the allocation of seats in a legislative body where different methods can yield different outcomes.
5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test
- The Alabama Paradox is a type of apportionment paradox where increasing the total number of seats results in a state losing a seat.
- The New States Paradox happens when adding a new state and its fair share of seats affects the allocation for existing states.
- The Population Paradox occurs when one state’s growth rate exceeds another’s, yet it loses a seat to the slower-growing state.
- Apportionment paradoxes highlight flaws and inconsistencies in different mathematical methods used to allocate resources fairly.
- Common methods for apportionment include Hamilton's method, Jefferson's method, and Webster's method—all susceptible to various paradoxes.
Review Questions
- What is an apportionment paradox?
- Describe the Alabama Paradox and provide an example.
- How does the Population Paradox challenge our understanding of fair apportionment?
"Apportionment paradox" appears in:
Related terms
Hamilton's Method: A method of apportionment that assigns seats based on quotas calculated from proportions.
Jefferson's Method: An apportionment technique that uses modified divisors to allocate seats proportionally.
Webster's Method: A way of distributing seats by rounding quotas to the nearest whole number.
