# Unit 5: Voting and Apportionment Methods

In this unit, you will explore different methods to determine the outcomes of elections, investigate the paradoxes associated with these voting methods, utilize different apportionment methods to allocate items, and understand the flaws associated with the various apportionment methods.

## Instructions

Begin this unit by viewing the Introduction below.

0 %0 of 11 topics complete

Topic Completion Number of Tasks Completed Pace value Item status Tooltip
Completion 0 0 Success 0 of 11 topics complete

## List of Topics and Sub-Modules for Unit 5: Voting and Apportionment Methods

{count} items shown.{count} items selected.All items selected.Clear Selection

• Unit 5 Introduction Web Page Updated
• Section Notes 14.1 Voting Methods Link Updated
• Section Notes 14.2 Flaws of Voting Link Updated
• Section Notes 14.3 Apportionment Methods Link Updated
• Section Notes 14.4 Flaws of the Apportionment Methods Link Updated
• Unit 5 MyMathLab Assignments Web Page Updated
• Unit 5 Discussion: Voting Methods Discussion Topic Updated In Unit 5, we are learning about voting and apportionment. For this discussion, you will post at least twice – 1) an initial post, and then 2) a reply to a classmate.
For your initial postSelect one of the following statements and determine whether the statement makes sense or does not make sense. Explain your reasoning and include an example to support your answer. You must include calculations or links to websites to support your answer.
1. A candidate has a majority of the vote, yet lost the election using the plurality method.2. A candidate has a majority of the vote, yet lost the election using the plurality-with-elimination method.3. A candidate has a plurality of the vote, yet lost the election using the Borda count method.4. A candidate won the election using the plurality-with-elimination method, yet lost the election when the votes were counted by the pairwise comparison method.