(Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania, 1912.) 



THE THEORY OF THE QUOTA IN PROPOR- 

 TIONAL REPRESENTATION— I. 



Errata. 

 §25. — The last three lines should read : 



'' X, I/, z, ... the seats obtained by the parties with the 

 method of apportionment actually used. 



p', q', r' . . respectively equal to xQ, yQ, zQ . . . , 

 so that — 



2^' -^ q^ -\- r^ + . . = p -t q ■\- r -\- . , ^= V .'' 



§26. — The second senteuce should read: 



" The method of apportionment actually used gives x, y^ 

 z . . . seats to the parties, and this allotment is equivalent 

 to taking the strengths of the parties to he yl, q', r' . . ^ 

 instead A the actual p, q, r . . . , and allotting seats by the 

 rule of three in proportion to p\ q'^ r' . . . " 



§36. — The second paragraph should read : 



" Regarded thus, the allotment may be considered ideal if 

 the number of members divided by the number of votes is 

 as nearly as possible the same for each party. This condition 

 is expressible in the form that 



S T- _ ^V 



shall be a minimum. This expression can be written in the 

 form 



S ( P' ~ ^y = k^ .... (^7)." 



N'ote. 



In "the comparison in §§9-*21 of the Hare aud Droop 

 quotas in a contest between two parties it is supposed that 

 all transfers of votes are made exactly in accordant;e with 

 the rule of three This is so in the rules of the Tasmanian 

 Electoral Act of 1907 (subject to the unimportant detail 

 that fractional remainders are neglected), and consequently 

 the argument of §§9-2I is correct for these rules. The 

 argument is not necessarily correct for rules such as those 

 of the English Municipal Representation Bill of 1907, in 

 which exact proportion is not used in all the transfers. 



