While various authors have appealed to Dalton's Principle of Transfers, the Lorenz curve, and the Gini Coefficient to assess disproportionality in proportional representation systems, some additional clarifications are warranted with regard to these concepts and their proper application to the disproportionality issue. This article shows that the three concepts keep their full power and internal consistency if one considers the proportional representation problem as one of maximizing equality of seat/vote ratios among individual voters. Inconsistencies arise if parties are taken as the relevant unit of account. If one insists on comparing parties, then the appropriate concern is rather with their `deviation from proportionality'. To assess that concept, measures of seat mobility are better suited than genuine inequality measures.
Atkinson, A.B. (1970) `On the Measurement of Inequality', Journal of Economic Theory2: 244-63.
2.
Balinski, M.L. and H.P. Young (2001) Fair Representation: Meeting the Ideal of One Man, One Vote, 2nd edn. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
3.
Berrebi, Z.M. and J. Silber (1987) `Dispersion, Asymmetry, and the Gini Index of Inequality' , International Economic Review28: 331-8.
4.
Birkhoff, G. (1976) `House Monotone Apportionment Schemes', Proceedings of the National Academy of Science73: 684-6.
5.
Borooah, V. (2002) `The Proportionality of Electoral Systems: Electoral Welfare and Electoral Inequality', Economics and Politics14: 83-98.
6.
Dalton, H. (1920) `The Measurement of the Inequality of Incomes' , Economic Journal30: 348-61.
7.
Ebert, U. (1997) `Social Welfare when Needs Differ: An Axiomatic Approach', Economica64: 233-44.
8.
Ebert, U. (1999) `Using Equivalent Income of Equivalent Adults to Rank Income Distributions', Social Choice and Welfare16: 233-58.
9.
Edelman, P.H. (2006) `Minimum Total Deviation Apportionments', in B. Simeone and F. Pukelsheim (eds) Mathematics and Democracy. Berlin: Springer.
10.
Fields, G. (2005) `The Many Facets of Economic Mobility'. Mimeo, ILR School, Cornell University.
11.
Fields, G.S. and E.A. Ok (1996) `The Meaning and Measurement of Income Mobility' , Journal of Economic Theory71: 349-77.
12.
Fields, G.S. and E.A. Ok (1999) `The Measurement of Income Mobility: An Introduction to the Literature', in J. Silber (ed.) Handbook of Income Inequality Measurement, pp. 557-96. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Press.
13.
Formby, J.P., T.G. Seaks and W.J. Smith, (1981) `A Comparison of Two New Measures of Tax Progressivity' , Economic Journal91: 1015-19.
14.
Fry, V. and I. McLean (1991) `A Note on Rose's Proportionality Index', Electoral Studies, 10: 52-9.
15.
Gallagher, M. (1991) `Proportionality, Disproportionality, and Electoral Systems', Electoral Studies10: 33-51.
16.
Galeotti, G. (1994) `On Proportional Non-Representation', Public Choice, 80: 359-70.
17.
Grilli di Cortona, P., C. Manzi, A. Pennisi, F. Ricca and B. Simeone (1999) Evaluation and Optimization of Electoral Systems . Philadelphia: SIAM Monographs on Discrete Mathematics.
18.
Huntington, E.V. (1928) `The Apportionment of Representatives in Congress' , Transactions of the American Mathematical Society30: 85-110.
19.
Kakwani, N.C. (1977) `Measurement of Tax Progressivity: an International Comparison', Economic Journal87: 71-80.
20.
Lambert, P. (2001) The Distribution and Redistribution of Income, 3rd edn. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
21.
Lauwers, L. and T. Van Puyenbroeck (2006a) `The Hamilton Apportionment Method Is between the Adams Method and the Jefferson Method', Mathematics of Operations Research31: 390-7.
22.
Lauwers, L. and T. Van Puyenbroeck (2006b) `The Balinski-Young Comparison of Divisor Methods Is Transitive', Social Choice and Welfare26: 603-6.
23.
Marshall, A.W., I. Olkin and F. Pukelsheim (2002) `A Majorization Comparison of Apportionment Methods in Proportional Representation', Social Choice and Welfare19: 885-900.
24.
Mitra, T. and E.A. Ok (1998) `The Measurement of Income Mobility: A Partial Ordering Approach', Economic Theory12: 77-102.
25.
Monroe, B. (1994) `Disproportionality Indexes and Malapportionment: Measuring Electoral Inequity', Electoral Studies13: 132-49.
26.
Moyes, P. (1987) `A New Concept of Lorenz Domination', Economics Letters23: 203-7.
27.
Moyes, P. (1999) `Stochastic Dominance and the Lorenz Curve', in J. Silber (ed.) Handbook of Income Inequality Measurement, pp. 199-222. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Press.
28.
Mudambi, R. (1997) `A Complete Information Index for Measuring the Proportionality of Electoral Systems', Applied Economics Letters4: 101-4.
29.
Pennisi, A. (1998) `Disproportionality Indexes and Robustness of Proportional Allocation Methods', Electoral Studies17: 3-19.
30.
Sainte Laguë, M.A. (1910) `La Représentation Proportionelle et la Méthode des Moindres Carrés', Annales Scientifiques de l'École Normale Supérieure3: 529-54.
31.
Sen, A. (1973) On Economic Inequality. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
32.
Silber, J. (1995) `Horizontal Inequity, the Gini Index, and the Measurement of Distributional Change', Research on Economic Inequality6: 379-92.
33.
Suits, D. (1977) `Measurement of Tax Progressivity', American Economic Review67: 747-52.
34.
Taagepera, R. and B. Grofman (2003) `Mapping the Indices of Seats-Votes Disproportionality and Inter-Election Volatility', Party Politics9: 659-77.
35.
Theil, H. (1969) `The Desired Political Entropy', American Political Science Review63: 521-5.
36.
Theil, H. and L. Schrage (1977) `The Apportionment Problem and the European Parliament' , European Economic Review9: 247-63.
37.
Yitzhaki, S. (1998) `More than a Dozen Alternative Ways of Spelling Gini', Research on Economic Inequality8: 13-30.
