House monotonicity[1]: 134–141 (also called house-size monotonicity[2]) is a property of apportionment methods. These are methods for allocating seats in a parliament among federal states (or among political parties). The property says that, if the number of seats in the "house" (the parliament) increases, and the method is re-activated, then no state (or party) should have fewer seats than it previously had. A method that fails to satisfy house-monotonicity is said to have the Alabama paradox.
In the context of committee elections, house monotonicity is often called committee monotonicity. It says that, if the size of the committee increases, then all the candidate that were previously elected, are still elected.
House monotonicity is the special case of resource monotonicity for the setting in which the resource consists of identical discrete items (the seats).
- ^ Balinski, Michel L.; Young, H. Peyton (1982). Fair Representation: Meeting the Ideal of One Man, One Vote. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-02724-9.
- ^ Pukelsheim, Friedrich (2017), Pukelsheim, Friedrich (ed.), "Securing System Consistency: Coherence and Paradoxes", Proportional Representation: Apportionment Methods and Their Applications, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 159–183, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-64707-4_9, ISBN 978-3-319-64707-4, retrieved 2021-09-02
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search