MMW - Apportionment and Voting Notes

Apportionment
Prepared and Compiled by:
Annabelle Q. Sollano
University of San Jose-Recoletos
Learning Objectives:
1) Define apportionment and explain its different
principles;
2) Identify the different types of voting system and
explain the concepts and principles behind each
type.
3) Solve problems involving apportionment and
voting.
4) Manifest honesty, open-mindedness, and
excellence in solving the different application
problems of apportionment and voting and
explain its relevance to real-life situations.
APPORTIONMENT & VOTING ANNABELLE Q. SOLLANO

Apportionment
 A method of dividing a whole into
various part.
 The apportionment of seats in the
House of Representatives is based
on the relative population of each
state.
 Has its roots in the U.S. Constitution
APPORTIONMENT & VOTING

Apportionment
Apportionment Method:
 The Hamilton Plan (Alexander Hamilton)
 The Jefferson Plan (Thomas Jefferson)
 The Adam’s Plan (John Quincy Adams)
 The Webster’s Plan (Daniel Webster)
 Huntington-Hill Apportionment Method

1) The Hamilton Plan
Standard Divisor (D)
 the number of people/voters
represented by each
representative
total population
𝐷=
number of people to apportion

Standard Quota (Q)
The whole number part of the
quotient of a population
divided by the standard divisor
sub − group population

𝑄=
standard divisor

Hamilton’s Method:
1) Using the standard divisor (D), calculate the
standard quota (Q) rounded to the nearest whole
number (lower quota). Initially, each sub-group
receives a number of seats equal to its lower quota.
2) If the sum of the lower quotas equals the number of
seats to be apportioned, the apportionment process
is complete.
3) If the sum of the lower quotas is less than the total
number of seats to be apportioned, then assign a
seat to the sub-group that has the highest decimal
part in its standard quota.
4) Repeat step 3 (using the next highest decimal part)
until the total number of seats has been apportioned.

Example #1: Using Hamilton’s Plan
A university is composed of four
schools. There are 350 new computers to
be apportioned among the four schools
according to their respective enrolments.
The enrolment in each school is given in
the following table. Find the standard
divisor and standard quotient of each
school.
School Humanities Business Education Science and
Math
.
Enrolment 1250 985 1420 1595

Solution #1: Hamilton’s Plan
Standard
School Enrolment Quotient
Quota
Humanities 1,250 83.333 83
Business 985 65.667 65 5,250
𝐷=
350
Education 1,420 94.667 94
Science and = 𝟏𝟓
1,595 106.333 106
Math
Total 5,250 348
What is the meaning of the number 15 as calculated
earlier?
It is the number of computers represented by each
school.
APPORTIONMENT & VOTING PROF. ANNABELLE Q. SOLLANO
Solution #1: Hamilton’s Plan
Standard Number of
Quota Computers
Humanities 1,250 83.333 83 83
Business 985 65.667 65 66
Education 1,420 94.667 94 95
Science and
1,595 106.333 106 106
Math
Total 5,250 348 350

2) The Jefferson Plan
 uses a modified standard divisor 𝐷𝑚
that yields to the correct number of
representatives by trial and error so
that the sum of the standard quotas
is equal to the number of
representatives.
 the modified standard divisor is
always less than the standard divisor.

Jefferson’s Method:
1. Using the standard divisor, calculate the standard quota
and the lower quotas of each sub-group.
2. If the sum of the lower quotas equals the total number
of seats to be apportioned, the apportionment process
is complete, that is, each subgroup receives a number
of seats equal to its lower quota.
3. If the sum of the lower quotas does not equal to the
number of seats to be apportioned, choose a modified
divisor less than the standard divisor and calculate the
modified quotas and lower modified quotas.
4. Repeat step 3 until you find a modified divisor such that
the sum of the lower modified quotas equals the total
number of seats to be apportioned. Each subgroup
receives a number of seats equal to its lower modified
quota, and the apportionment process is complete.

Example #2: Using Jefferson’s Plan
school.
Math
.
Enrolment 1250 985 1420 1595

Solution #2: Jefferson’s Plan
Number of
Computers
𝟏𝟐𝟓𝟎
Humanities 1,250 = 𝟖𝟑. 𝟕𝟖𝟎 83
𝟏𝟒.𝟗𝟐
𝟗𝟖𝟓
Business 985 = 𝟔𝟔. 𝟎𝟏𝟗 66
𝟏𝟒.𝟗𝟐
𝟏𝟒𝟐𝟎
Education 1,420 𝟏𝟒.𝟗𝟐
= 𝟗𝟓. 𝟏𝟕𝟒 95
𝟏𝟓𝟗𝟓
Science and Math 1,595 𝟏𝟒.𝟗𝟐
= 𝟏𝟎𝟔. 𝟗𝟎𝟑 106
Total 5,250 350

3) Adam’s Method:
Adams’s method divides all
populations by a modified divisor and
then rounds the results up to the upper
quota. Just like Jefferson’s method we
keep guessing modified divisors until
the method assigns the correct number
of seats. All the quotas are rounded up
so the standard divisor will give a sum
that is too large. Our guess for the first
modified divisor should be a number
larger than the standard divisor.

Summary of Adams’s Method:
1. Find the standard divisor.
2. Pick a modified divisor, d, that is slightly more
than the standard divisor.
3. Divide each state’s population by the modified
divisor to get the modified quota.
4. Round each modified quota up to the upper
quota.
5. Find the sum of the upper quotas.
6. If the sum is the same as the number of seats
to be apportioned, you are done. If the sum is
too big, pick a new modified divisor that is
larger than d. If the sum is too small, pick a new
modified divisor that is smaller than d. Repeat
steps three through six until the correct number
of seats are apportioned.

Example #3: Using Adam’s Plan
school.
Math
.
Enrolment 1250 985 1420 1595

Solution #3: Adam’s Plan
Number of
Computers
𝟏𝟐𝟓𝟎
Humanities 1,250 = 𝟖𝟐. 𝟕𝟖𝟏 83
𝟏𝟓.𝟏𝟎
𝟗𝟖𝟓
Business 985 = 𝟔𝟓. 𝟐𝟑𝟐 66
𝟏𝟓.𝟏𝟎
𝟏𝟒𝟐𝟎
Education 1,420 𝟏𝟓.𝟏𝟎
= 𝟗𝟒. 𝟎𝟒𝟎 95
𝟏𝟓𝟗𝟓
Science and Math 1,595 𝟏𝟓.𝟏𝟎
= 𝟏𝟎𝟓. 𝟔𝟐𝟗 106
Total 5,250 350

4) Webster’s Plan:
Webster’s method divides all populations by a
modified divisor and then rounds the results up or
down following the usual rounding rules. Just like
Jefferson’s method we keep guessing modified
divisors until the method assigns the correct
number of seats. Because some quotas are rounded
up and others down we do not know if the standard
divisor will give a sum that is too large or too
small. Our guess for the first modified divisor
should be the standard divisor.

Summary of Webster’s Method:
1. Find the standard divisor. Use the standard divisor as the
first modified divisor.
2. Divide each state’s population by the modified divisor to
get the modified quota.
3. Round each modified quota to the nearest integer (round
off) using conventional rounding rules.
4. Find the sum of the rounded quotas.
5. If the sum is the same as the number of seats to be
apportioned, you are done. If the sum is too big, pick a
new modified divisor that is larger than d. If the sum is
too small, pick a new modified divisor that is smaller
than d. Repeat steps two through five until the correct
number of seats are apportioned.

Example #4: Using Webster’s Plan
school.
Math
.
Enrolment 1250 985 1420 1595

Solution #4: Webster’s Plan
Number of
Computers
𝟏𝟐𝟓𝟎
Humanities 1,250 = 𝟖𝟑. 𝟑𝟑𝟑 83
𝟏𝟓
𝟗𝟖𝟓
Business 985 = 𝟔𝟓. 𝟔𝟔𝟕 66
𝟏𝟓
𝟏𝟒𝟐𝟎
Education 1,420 𝟏𝟓
= 𝟗𝟒. 𝟔𝟔𝟕 95
𝟏𝟓𝟗𝟓
Science and Math 1,595 𝟏𝟓
= 𝟏𝟎𝟔. 𝟑𝟑𝟑 106
Total 5,250 350

Recall: Apportionment Plan
School Enrolment Hamilton Jefferson Adam Webster
Humanities 1,250 83 83 83 83
Business 985 66 66 66 66
Education 1,420 95 95 95 95
Science and
1,595 106 106 106 106
Math
Total 5,250 350 350 350 350

Further Readings:
Flaws of Apportionment Plans:
1. Alabama Paradox
2. Population Paradox
3. New State Paradox

Paradoxes:

Fairness in Apportionment
One criterion of fairness for an
apportionment plan is that it should satisfy the quota
rule
Quota Rule – The number of representatives
apportioned to a state is the
standard quota or one more than
the standard quota
Average Constituency (C) – the average
constituencies of the sub-group are
approximately the same
𝐩𝐨𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐮𝐛 − 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐩
𝑪=
𝐧𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬

Fairness in Apportionment
Absolute Unfairness of an Apportionment – The absolute unfairness of
an apportionment is the absolute value of the
difference between the average constituency of state
A and the average constituency of state B.
𝑨𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒕𝒖𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒚 𝒐𝒇 𝑨 − 𝑨𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒕𝒖𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒚 𝒐𝒇 𝑩
Relative Unfairness of an Apportionment – The relative unfairness of

an apportionment and the average constituency of
the state receiving the new representative.
𝒂𝒃𝒔𝒐𝒍𝒖𝒕𝒆 𝒖𝒏𝒇𝒂𝒊𝒓𝒏𝒆𝒔𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒂𝒑𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕

𝒂𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒕𝒖𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒚 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒄𝒆𝒊𝒗𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒏𝒆𝒘 𝒓𝒆𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒆

Example #5:
Consider the two states Hampton and
Shasta in the table below. Find the average
constituency.
State Population Representa Average Constituency
tives
Hampton 16,000 10 𝟏𝟔𝟎𝟎𝟎
= 𝟏, 𝟔𝟎𝟎
𝟏𝟎
Shasta 8,340 5 𝟖𝟑𝟒𝟎

= 𝟏, 𝟔𝟔𝟖
𝟓
Although the average constituencies of Hampton

.
and Shasta are approximately equal, which state has the

more favorable representation?
Apportionment Principle
 When adding a new representative to a
sub-group, the representative is
assigned to the group in such a way as
to give the smallest relative unfairness
of apportionment
𝑨
𝑹=
𝑪
where R is the relative unfairness of apportionment
A is the absolute unfairness of apportionment = 𝐶1 − 𝐶2
C is the average constituency of the sub-group receiving the
. new representative

Example #6:
Consider the two states Hampton
and Shasta in the table below.
State Average Constituency Average Constituency
(old) (new)
Hampton 𝟏𝟔𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝟏𝟔𝟎𝟎𝟎
= 𝟏, 𝟔𝟎𝟎 = 𝟏, 𝟒𝟓𝟒. 𝟓𝟒𝟓
𝟏𝟎 𝟏𝟏
Shasta 𝟖𝟑𝟒𝟎 𝟖𝟑𝟒𝟎

= 𝟏, 𝟔𝟔𝟖 = 𝟏, 𝟑𝟗𝟎
𝟓 𝟔

Example #7:
Consider the two states Hampton
and Shasta in the table below.
Hampton’s Shasta’s Absolute
Average Average unfairness of
constituency constituency apportionment
Hampton
𝟏𝟔𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝟖𝟑𝟒𝟎
receives the =
𝟏𝟏 𝟓
= 𝟐𝟏𝟑. 𝟒𝟓𝟓
new 𝟏, 𝟒𝟓𝟒. 𝟓𝟒𝟓 𝟏, 𝟔𝟔𝟖
representative
Shasta receives 𝟏𝟔𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝟖𝟑𝟒𝟎
= =
the new 𝟏𝟎 𝟔 𝟐𝟏𝟎
representative 𝟏, 𝟔𝟎𝟎 𝟏, 𝟑𝟗𝟎
Example #4:
The following table shows how the
average constituency changes for two
regional governing boards, Joshua and
Salinas, when a new representative is added
to each board.
Joshua’s average Salinas’s average
constituency constituency
Joshua receives
new board 1215 1547
member
Salinas receives
.
new board 1498 1195
member
Solution #4:
Absolute Relative
Joshua’s Salinas’s
Unfairness of Unfairness of
average average
Apportionme Apportionme
constituency constituency
nt nt
Joshua ȁ𝟏𝟐𝟏𝟓 𝟑𝟑𝟐
receives =
new board 1,215 1,547 𝟏𝟐𝟏𝟓
𝟎. 𝟐𝟕𝟑
member
Salinas ȁ𝟏𝟒𝟗𝟖 𝟑𝟎𝟑
receives =
new board 1,498 1,195 𝟏𝟏𝟗𝟓
𝟎. 𝟐𝟓𝟒
member

Example #4:
a) Determine the relative unfairness of an
apportionment that gives a new board member to
Joshua rather than to Salinas. Round to the nearest
thousandth. 𝟑𝟑𝟐
= 𝟎. 𝟐𝟕𝟑
𝟏𝟐𝟏𝟓
b) Determine the relative unfairness of an
apportionment that gives a new board member to
Salinas rather than to Joshua. Round to the nearest
thousandth. 𝟑𝟎𝟑
= 𝟎. 𝟐𝟓𝟒
𝟏𝟏𝟗𝟓
c) Using the apportionment principle, determine which

regional governing board should receive the new
board member.
Salinas will receive the new board member.

5)Huntington-Hill Apportionment Method
 Method of equal proportions
 Used by the House of
Representatives since 1940
 Implemented by calculating what is
called Huntington-Hill number which
is derived from the apportionment
principle.

Huntington-Hill Apportionment Method
 When there is a choice of adding one
representative to a number of sub-groups,
the representative should be added to the
sub-group with the greatest Huntington-Hill
number denoted by
𝑷𝑨 𝟐
𝑯=
𝒂 𝒂+𝟏
Where: 𝑷𝑨 is the population of the sub-group A

a is the current number of representatives of
. sub-group A

Example #7:
A University has a president’s council that is
composed of students from each of the
undergraduate classes. If a new student
representative is added to the council, use the
Huntington-Hill apportionment principle to
determine which class the new student council
member should represent.
Class Number of Number of
Representatives Students
1st Year 12 2015
2nd Year 10 1755
. 3rd Year 9 1430
4th Year 8 1309
Example #7:
Number of Number of
Class HHAP
Representatives Students
𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟓𝟐
1st Year 12 2015 𝟏𝟐 𝟏𝟐+𝟏
≈ 𝟐𝟔, 𝟎𝟐𝟕
𝟏𝟕𝟓𝟓𝟐
2nd Year 10 1755 𝟏𝟎 𝟏𝟎+𝟏
≈ 𝟐𝟖, 𝟎𝟎𝟎
𝟏𝟒𝟑𝟎𝟐
3rd Year 9 1430 𝟗 𝟗+𝟏
≈ 𝟐𝟐, 𝟕𝟐𝟏
𝟏𝟑𝟎𝟗𝟐
4th Year 8 1309 ≈ 𝟐𝟑, 𝟕𝟗𝟖
𝟖 𝟖+𝟏
Second year class has the greatest Huntington-Hill

number. Thus according to the Huntington-Hill Apportionment
Principle, the representative should be assigned to 2nd year class.

Voting
Prepared and Compiled by:
Annabelle Q. Sollano
University of San Jose-Recoletos
Introduction:
The Constitution of the Philippines,
stipulates that the election is held every six
years. The incumbent president’s term is
limited for 6 years and cannot run for another
term. The plurality voting system is used to
determine the winner: the candidate with the
highest number of votes, whether or not one
has a majority, wins the presidency.
The Philippines has a multi-party system,
with numerous parties in which no one party
often has a chance of gaining power alone, and
parties must work with each other to form a
coalition government. This can be done by
weighted voting system.

The Constitution of the Philippines
also mandated Congress to make
reapportionment of legislative districts
following the return of every national
census, in order to ensure that for every
increase in the population of a city or
province, the increase in every
inhabitants are duly represented in
Congress at the ratio of a
Representative for every two hundred
fifty thousand inhabitants.

Before the year 2010, the Province of
Laguna, had only four districts. As of May 10,
2010, it had tremendously increased to
2,669,847, as per annual population growth rate of
Laguna conducted by the National Statistics Office,
necessitating a reapportionment of its legislative
districts in order to give proper and adequate
representation in the House of Representatives.
Thus, a reapportionment of the Fourth District of
Laguna was acted upon by the Senate and the
House of Representative of the Philippines in
Congress.
So, the Province of Laguna is entitled to
10.679 representatives, which is not exactly a
whole number. Dealing with decimal remainders
like this is the basis for apportionment problems.
1.) Plurality Method of Voting
 each voter votes for one candidate,
and the candidate with the most
votes wins. The winning candidate
does not have to have a majority of
the votes.
 majority vote: over 50% of the people
voting must vote for the candidate

Example:
Who will win the presidency in an
organization (A, B, or C) using the
plurality voting system? Candidate C
Number of Voters 13 11 9 5
1st choice A C B C
2nd choice B A A B
3rd choice C B C A

Alternative Format:
plurality voting system? Candidate C
A 1 2 2 3
B 2 3 1 2
C 3 1 3 1

2.) Borda Count Method of Voting
 Each voter ranks all of the candidates;
that is, each voter selects his or her first
choice, second choice, third choice, and
so on. If there are k candidates, each
candidate receives k points for each
first-choice vote, (k - 1) points for each
second-choice vote, (k - 2) points for
each third-choice vote, and so on. The
candidate with the most total points is
declared the winner.

Example:
Borda count method?
1st choice 3 pts A C B C
2nd choice 2 pts B A A B
3rd choice 1 pt C B C A
Candidate A

3.) Plurality with Elimination Method
 each person votes for his or her
favorite candidate. If a candidate
receives a majority of votes, that
candidate is declared the winner. If
no candidate receives a majority,
then the candidate with the fewest
votes is eliminated and a new
election is held. This process
continues until a candidate receives
a majority of the votes.

Example:
A university wants to add a new sport to its existing
program. To help ensure that the new sport will have student
support, the students of the university are asked to rank the
four sports under consideration. The results are shown in the
following table.
Sports Rankings
Lacrosse 464 3 2 3 1 1 2
Squash 494 2 1 4 2 3 1
Rowing 0 4 3 2 4 4 4
Golf 613 1 4 1 3 2 3
Number of Ballots: 326 297 287 250 214 197
Use the plurality with elimination method to determine
which of these sports should be added to the university’s
program.

Solution:
Sports
. Rankings
Lacrosse 464 3 2 2 1 1 2
Squash 494 2 1 3 2 3 1
Golf 613 1 3 1 3 2 3
Sports Rankings
Squash 744 2 1 2 1 2 1
Golf 827 1 2 1 2 1 2
Thus, Golf is added to the sports program.

4.) Pairwise Comparison Voting
 sometimes referred to as the head-to-head
method
 Each voter ranks all of the candidates; that
is, each voter selects his or her first
choice, second choice, third choice, and so
on. For each possible pairing of
candidates, the candidate with the most
votes receives 1 point; if there is a tie, each
candidate receives 0.5 points and 0 points
for a loss. The candidate who receives the
most points is declared the winner.

Example:
One hundred restaurant critics were asked to
rank their favorite restaurants from a list of four. The
preference schedule for the critics is shown in the
table below.
Rankings
Sanborn’s Fine Dining 3 1 4 3 1
The Apple Inn 4 3 3 2 4
May’s Steak House 2 2 1 1 3
Tory’s Seafood 1 4 2 4 2
Number of Ballots: 31 25 18 15 11
Use the pairwise voting method to determine

the critics’ favorite restaurant.
May’s has the most points, so it is the
critics’ choice.
Solution:
. Sanborn Apple May’s Tory’s
Sanborn’s Fine Dining Sanborn May Sanborn
The Apple Inn May Tory
May’s Steak House May
Tory’s Seafood
May’s has the most points, so it is the critics’

choice.

Recall:
35 students
18+1=19 votes
Hercules

Recall:
Hercules
Yes

Recall:
Hercules
10
16 12 2 1 1 2
19 13 1 2 2 1

Recall:

Instant Run-off
Elsa vs. Moana
Elsa = 6 + 4 + 5 = 15
Moana = 6 + 6 + 8 = 20
Elsa vs. Hercules
Elsa = 6 + 4 + 6 = 16
Hercules = 5 + 6 + 8 = 19
Moana vs. Hercules
Moana = 4 + 6 + 6 = 16
Hercules = 6 + 5 + 8 = 19
Solution:
. Elsa Moana Hercules
Elsa Moana Hercules
Moana Hercules
Hercules
Hercules is the children favorite cartoon

character.

Flaws of Voting Systems
Fairness Criteria
 Majority Criterion
The candidate who receives a majority
of the first-place votes is the winner.
 Monotonicity Criterion
If candidate A wins an election, then
candidate A will also win the election if the
only change in the voters’ preferences is
that supporters of a different candidate
change their votes to support candidate A.

Fairness Criteria
 Condorcet criterion
A candidate who wins all possible
head-to-head matchups should win an
election when all candidates appear on
the ballot.
 Independence of irrelevant alternatives
If a candidate wins an election, the
winner should remain the winner in any
recount in which losing candidates
withdraw from the race.

Fairness Criteria
 Non-dictatorship
If the preference choice should
NOT simply follow the preference
voter’s ranking of a single individual
while ignoring others.

Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem
There is no voting method involving

three or more choices that satisfies all five
fairness criteria

Have a
Nice Day


MMW - Apportionment and Voting Notes

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

MMW - Apportionment and Voting Notes

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Apportionment

Prepared and Compiled by:

APPORTIONMENT & VOTING ANNABELLE Q. SOLLANO

APPORTIONMENT & VOTING

APPORTIONMENT & VOTING

APPORTIONMENT & VOTING

sub − group population

APPORTIONMENT & VOTING

APPORTIONMENT & VOTING

APPORTIONMENT & VOTING

APPORTIONMENT & VOTING

APPORTIONMENT & VOTING

APPORTIONMENT & VOTING

APPORTIONMENT & VOTING PROF. ANNABELLE Q. SOLLANO

Total 5,250 350

APPORTIONMENT & VOTING

APPORTIONMENT & VOTING

APPORTIONMENT & VOTING

APPORTIONMENT & VOTING PROF. ANNABELLE Q. SOLLANO

Total 5,250 350

APPORTIONMENT & VOTING

APPORTIONMENT & VOTING

APPORTIONMENT & VOTING

APPORTIONMENT & VOTING

Total 5,250 350

APPORTIONMENT & VOTING

School Enrolment Hamilton Jefferson Adam Webster

Total 5,250 350 350 350 350

APPORTIONMENT & VOTING

APPORTIONMENT & VOTING

APPORTIONMENT & VOTING

APPORTIONMENT & VOTING

Relative Unfairness of an Apportionment – The relative unfairness of

𝒂𝒃𝒔𝒐𝒍𝒖𝒕𝒆 𝒖𝒏𝒇𝒂𝒊𝒓𝒏𝒆𝒔𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒂𝒑𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕

APPORTIONMENT & VOTING

Shasta 8,340 5 𝟖𝟑𝟒𝟎

Although the average constituencies of Hampton

and Shasta are approximately equal, which state has the

APPORTIONMENT & VOTING

Shasta 𝟖𝟑𝟒𝟎 𝟖𝟑𝟒𝟎

APPORTIONMENT & VOTING

APPORTIONMENT & VOTING PROF. ANNABELLE Q. SOLLANO

c) Using the apportionment principle, determine which

APPORTIONMENT & VOTING

APPORTIONMENT & VOTING

Where: 𝑷𝑨 is the population of the sub-group A

APPORTIONMENT & VOTING

Second year class has the greatest Huntington-Hill

APPORTIONMENT & VOTING

APPORTIONMENT & VOTING

APPORTIONMENT & VOTING

APPORTIONMENT & VOTING

APPORTIONMENT & VOTING

APPORTIONMENT & VOTING

APPORTIONMENT & VOTING

APPORTIONMENT & VOTING

APPORTIONMENT & VOTING PROF. ANNABELLE Q. SOLLANO

APPORTIONMENT & VOTING

Thus, Golf is added to the sports program.

APPORTIONMENT & VOTING

APPORTIONMENT & VOTING

Use the pairwise voting method to determine

May’s has the most points, so it is the critics’