Upload
melvin-wade
View
224
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Fair Division & ApportionmentChapters 13 & 14Austin Cole
Fair Division Outline•Adjusted Winner Procedure•Knaster Inheritance Procedure•Taking Turns• Bottom-Up Strategy
•Divide and Choose▫Steinhaus Proportional Procedure▫Banach-Knaster Proportional Procedure▫Selfridge-Conway Envy-Free Procedure
Adjusted Winner Procedure
•Allows two parties to settle a dispute involving issues or objects with a certain mathematical degree of fairness
Glaxo Wellcome & SmithKline Beecham Merger•Assume there were five social issues for
compromise:▫Name of the company▫Location of headquarters▫Person to serve as Chairman▫Person to serve as CEO▫Where layoffs would come from
Steps in Adjusted Winner Procedure1. Each party distributes 100 points over items to
reflect their relative worth
Issue Glaxo Wellcome SmithKline Beecham
Name 5 10
Headquarters 25 10
Chairman 35 20
CEO 15 35
Layoffs 20 25
2. Each item is given to party that assigned it more points. Each party tallies number of points received. The party with fewest points is given items on which both parties placed the same number of points.
Issue Glaxo SmithKline
Name 5 10
HQ 25 10
Chairman 35 20
CEO 15 35
Layoffs 20 25
Glaxo SmithKline
HQ (25) Name (10)
Chairman (35) CEO (35)
Layoffs (25)
Points=60 Points=70
3. If point totals aren’t equal, let A denote party with more points and B be the other party. Transfer items from A to B until point totals are equal (can involve fractional transfer).
4. Order is determined by increasing point ratio:A’s point value of the itemB’s point value of the item
Layoffs Point Ratio: 25/20=1.25Name Point Ratio: 10/5=2CEO Point Ratio: 2.33
Glaxo SmithKline
HQ (25) Name (10)
Chairman (35) CEO (35)
Layoffs (25)
Points=60 Points=70
•So we transfers layoffs, but not the whole value•25 + 35 + 20(1-X) = 10 + 35 + 25X •X = 7/9•So, 60 + 20(2/9) = 45 + 25(7/9) = 64
Glaxo SmithKline
HQ (25) Name (10)
Chairman (35) CEO (35)
Layoffs (25)
Points=60 Points=70
Glaxo SmithKline
HQ (25) Name (10)
Chairman (35) CEO (35)
2/9 Layoffs (4) 7/9 Layoffs (19)
Points=64 Points=64
Theorem: Properties of the Adjusted Winner Allocation•Allocation is equitableequitable: both players receive
same number of points•Allocation is envy-freeenvy-free: neither player would be
happier with what the other received•Allocation is Pareto-optimalPareto-optimal: no other allocation
can make one party better off without making the other worse off
Knaster Inheritance Procedure•A house has four heirs-Bob, Carol, Ted, & Alice
•Since Carol is the highest bidder, she gets the house▫But since her fair-share is ¼, she puts $150K up
for grabs▫Each person withdraws ¼ of their bid▫Bob: $30K Ted: $35K Alice: $45K▫Then the surplus is split four ways
BOB CAROL TED ALICE
$120,000 $200,000 $140,000 $180,000
•So the final settlement is
•What if there were more than one object?
•We just do the same for each object•Example 1
BOB CAROL TED ALICE
$40K House - $140K $45K $55K
BOB CAROL TED ALICE
House $120K $200K $140K $180K
Cabin $60K $40K $90K $50K
Boat $30K $24K $20K $20K
BOB CAROL TED ALICE
Boat-$20,875 $7,625 $6,625 $6,625
Taking Turns
•How do we decide who chooses first?•Because choosing first is often an advantage,
shouldn’t we compensate the other party in some way?
•Should a player always choose the object he most favors from those that remain, or are their strategic considerations to take into account?
Dividing up possessions for Divorce
Bottom-Up Strategy
•Rational player will never choose least preferred alternative
•Rational player will avoid wasting a choice on an object that he knows will remain available and can be chosen later
Bob Carol
A C
B E
C D
D A
E B
Bob C A B
Carol D E
Divide-and-Choose
•http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdYFVN35h5w
•One party divides the object into two parts and the other party chooses whichever part he wants
Cake-Division•Cake-Division Procedure: n players allocate a
cake among themselves so that each player has a strategy that will guarantee that player a piece with which he is satisfied, even in the face of collusion by others
•Procedure is proportional if each player’s strategy guarantees that player a piece of size at least 1/n of the whole in his estimation
•Procedure envy-free if each player’s strategy guarantees that player a piece considered to be at least tied for largest
Steinhaus Proportional Procedure for 3 Players•Bob divides a cake into three pieces•Carol & Ted must individually approve a piece to
be of size at least 1/3•Case 1: Carol & Ted approve different pieces.
They each get their piece and Bob gets the piece left over.
•Case 2: Carol & Ted approve the same piece A and disapprove of piece C. Give Bob piece C. Put A & B back together and let Carol & Ted divide and choose on AB.
Banach-Knaster Proportional Procedure for 4+ Players•Bob cuts a ¼ piece of cake and gives to Carol• If Carol thinks piece is too big, she trims it &
places trimmings back on cake & passes piece to Ted
•Ted proceeds as Carol did & passes piece to Alice
•Alice does the same but then holds on to piece•The piece goes to the last person that trimmed it
•The Bob, Carol, & Alice resume this process with the rest of the cake
•Bob cuts a ¼ piece of cake•Carol & Alice each get a chance to trim it and
the piece goes to the last person that trimmed it•Final two players use divide-
and choose method
Problem with Envy
•Both of these proportional procedures are not envy-free
•3 person: What if Carol & Ted both find one piece unacceptable that is given to Bob?
•4+ person: What if Bob receives his first cut piece without any trimmings?
Selfridge-Conway Envy-Free Procedure for 3 Players1. Player 1 cuts cake into 3 pieces of same size. He
hands 3 pieces to player 2.2. Player 2 trims at most 1 of 3 pieces to create at
least 2-way tie for largest. Set the trimmings aside & hand 3 pieces to player 3.
3. Player 3 chooses a piece4. Player 2 chooses from 2 remaining pieces. (If he
trimmed a piece in step 2 & player 3 didn’t choose it, he must choose it)
5. Player 1 receives remaining piece6. From trimmings, player 2 cuts into 3 pieces and
players choose in order of 3, 1, 2.
Apportionment Outline
•Hamilton Method•Jefferson Method•Webster Method•Hill-Huntington Method•Districts•Discussion
Apportionment
•Apportionment problem▫to round a set of fractions so that their sum is
maintained at its original value•Apportionment method▫the rounding procedure which must be able to be
applied constantly
State Population Quota Apportionment
Virginia 630,560 18.310 18
Massachusetts 475,327 13.803 14
Pennsylvania 432,879 12.570 13
North Carolina 353,523 10.266 10
New York 331,589 9.629 10
Maryland 278,514 8.088 8
Connecticut 236,841 6.878 7
South Carolina 206,236 5.989 6
New Jersey 179,570 5.214 5
New Hampshire 141,822 4.118 4
Vermont 85,533 2.484 2
Georgia 70,835 2.057 2
Kentucky 68,705 1.995 2
Rhode Island 68,446 1.988 2
Delaware 55,540 1.613 2
Totals 3,615,920 105 105
Original Plan for
Congressional
Apportionment (1790)
High School Math TeacherCourse Population Quota Rounded
Geometry 52 52/20=2.6 3
Pre-Calc 33 33/20=1.65 2
Calculus 15 15/20=.75 1
Totals 100 5 6
•Standard Divisor: total population divided by house size (100/5=20)
•Quota: a population divided by the standard divisor
Hamilton Method
•1. Calculate each state’s quota•2. Tentatively assign each state
its lower quota of representatives. This leaves additional seats.
•3. Allot the remaining seats (one each) to states whose quotas have the largest fractional parts until house is filled
State Population Quota Apportionment
Virginia 630,560 18.310 18
Massachusetts 475,327 13.803 14
Pennsylvania 432,879 12.570 13
North Carolina 353,523 10.266 10
New York 331,589 9.629 10
Maryland 278,514 8.088 8
Connecticut 236,841 6.878 7
South Carolina 206,236 5.989 6
New Jersey 179,570 5.214 5
New Hampshire 141,822 4.118 4
Vermont 85,533 2.484 2
Georgia 70,835 2.057 2
Kentucky 68,705 1.995 2
Rhode Island 68,446 1.988 2
Delaware 55,540 1.613 2
Totals 3,615,920 105 105
High School Math Teacher with Hamilton’s Method
•Calculus has largest fraction +1•Pre-Calc has second-largest fraction +1•So totals would be:▫Geometry 2, Pre-Calc 2, Calculus 1
Course Population Quota Lower Quota
Geometry 52 52/20=2.6 2
Pre-Calc 33 33/20=1.65 1
Calculus 15 15/20=.75 0
Totals 100 5 3
•Alabama Paradox: a state loses a seat as the result of an increase in house size
•Apportioning 30/31 Teaching Assistants:
Course Enrollment Quota Lower Quota Apportionment
A 188 7.52/7.771 7 /7^ 7/8
B 142 5.68/5.869 5^ /5^ 6/6
C 138 5.52/5.704 5 /5^ 5/6
D 64 2.56/2.645 2^ /2 3/2
E 218 8.72/9.011 8^ /9 9/9
Totals 750 30/31 27/28 30/31
Jefferson Method
•Divisor method: determines each state’s apportionment by dividing its population by a common divisor d and rounding the quotient
•Apportionment for a state i is▫Ai = pi rounded down
d
Jefferson Method• 1.Determine the standard divisor s and quota qi for
each state• 2.Assign each state i its tentative apportionment:
ni= pi rounded down
• 3. Find the critical divisor for state i, di= pi
• 4.The state with the largest critical divisor receives another seat
• 5. If there are extra seats, recompute the critical divisor
• 6.When house is filled, the last critical divisor is divisor d, representing the minimum district population
s
ni + 1
High School Math Teacher
•Geometry with greatest critical divisor adds a section (then new critical value is 13)
•So then Pre-Calc adds a section•Final Apportionment: Geometry 3, Pre-Calc 2,
Calculus 0•Minimum section size is 16.5
Course Population Lower Quota Critical Divisor
Geometry 52 2 52/3=17.333
Pre-Calc 33 1 33/2=16.5
Calculus 15 0 15/1=15
Totals 100 3
Hamilton vs. Jefferson Method
•1820 Census: NY Population-1,368,775 US Population-8,969,878
•House size 213•Standard divisor = 42,112 NY’s quota = 32.503•Hamilton method→33 seats•Jefferson method→ with d=39,900▫1,368,775/39,900 rounded down awards 34 seats
Webster Method
•The divisor method that rounds the quota to nearest whole number
1. Calculate standard divisor and find each state’s quota
2. The tentative apportionment ni is the rounded quota
3. Calculate sum of tentative apportionments
4. If tentative apportionments don’t fill the house, the critical divisor for state i is di
+= pi
The state with largest critical divisor receives a
seat.5.If tentative apportionments overfill the house,
the critical divisor for state i is di-= pi
The state with the smallest critical divisor loses a seat
ni + ½
ni - ½
High School Math Teacher
•Calculate di- for each class.
•Geo-20.8; Pre-Calc-22; Calc-30•Geometry loses a section
Course Population Quota Tentative Apportionment
Geometry 52 2.6 3
Pre-Calc 33 1.65 2
Calculus 15 0.75 1
Totals 100 6
Hill-Huntington Method
•Used to apportion House of Reps since 1940•Find standard divisor and quotas• If quota is greater than geometric mean, round
tentative apportionment up•Critical divisor is di
± = pi/√ ni(ni±1)
•Exercise 2
Districts
•Representative share: apportionment/population•District population: state pop./apportionment•Relative difference: given positive A,B and A>B,▫It is (A-B)/B X 100%
77th Congress
•Michigan was given 17 seats with a population of 5.256106 million (rep share=3.234)
•Arkansas was given 7 seats with a population of 1.949387 million (rep share=3.591)
•So the relative difference was
x100% = 11.04%3.591-3.2343.234
Discussion• In what instances can you think of that have
used proportional procedures? Were they envy-free?
•Can you think of other uses for apportionment? Which method would be best?
•Homework (7th Edition)▫Chapter 13 #3▫Chapter 14 #19