The Hamilton Apportionment Method Is Between the Adams Method and the Jefferson Method

References

• Balinski M. L., Young H. P. The Jefferson method of apportionment. SIAM Rev. (1978) 20(2):278–284Crossref, Google Scholar
• Balinski M. L., Young H. P. Quotatone apportionment methods. Math. Oper. Res. (1979) 4(1):31–38Link, Google Scholar
• Balinski M. L., Young H. P.Fair Representation: Meeting the Ideal of One Man, One Vote (1982) (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, London, UK) Google Scholar
• Broquet, Lancelot A. Report on electoral systems: Overview of available solutions and selection criteria (adopted by the Venice Commission at its 57th Plenary Session). (2004) . Study 250/003, Council of Europe http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2004/CDL-AD(2004)003-e.pdfGoogle Scholar
• Drton M., Schwingenschlögl U. Asymptotic seat bias formulas. Metrika (2005) 62(1):23–31Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lauwers L., Van Puyenbroeck T. The Balinski-Young comparison of divisor methods is transitive. Social Choice Welfare (2005) . http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00355-006-0110-6Google Scholar
• Marshall A. W., Olkin I., Pukelsheim F. A majorization comparison of apportionment methods in proportional representation. Social Choice Welfare (2002) 19(4):885–900Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schuster K., Pukelsheim F., Drton M., Draper N. R. Seat bias apportionment methods for proportional representation. Electoral Stud. (2003) 22(4):651–676Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schwingenschlögl U., Drton M. Seat allocation distributions and seat biases of stationary apportionment methods for proportional representation. Metrika (2004) 60(2):191–202Crossref, Google Scholar