Erratic Results and Non-Erractic Results

[New Democracy]

Dear Olli Salmi,

You wrote:
    "If the number of seats in the legislature or committee is increased, a
party may lose seats with the same number of votes with the largest
remainder method. That's what I mean by erratic. Still, the system is used
in many countries and it is easy to understand."

Party   Votes   19 Seat             20 Seat               Differences
                Quotient   Seats   Quotient   Seats    Quotient  Seats
  A      550      7.26       7       7.64       8        .38      +1
  B      470      6.20       6       6.53       7        .33      +1
  C      250      3.30       4       3.47       3        .17      -1
  D      170      2.24       2       2.36       2        .12       0

Donald writes:
     Why would we be increasing the number of seats during the tally? If
the number of seats in a legislature are changed, the election becomes a
new ballgame - the resultant numbers are going to be different. We must
accept the new results.

     It is erratic to change the seats in the middle of the tallying of the
ballots. If we do something erratic in the election we must expect erratic
results. In the real world the number of seats are not going to be changed
in the middle of the tally.

     Besides, the claim of Party C to their fourth seat is very weak. There
was only one remainder seat and Party C got it merely by having four
percent of a quota more - but still less than a majority.  "Easy Come -
Easy Go" is not unfair. What is unfair is to decrease the quota so that the
two largest parties gain a seat each.

     Everyone should notice that the decrease of the quota favored the
larger parties. This is mathematical - as the quota is decreased the larger
vote sums gain more seats than the smaller vote sums. The important point
to note is that if we increase the divisor for any reason we will favor the
larger parties. There is a design feature of another election method that
does increase the divisor by one. I am referring to the Droop quota - which
is a mathematical thing imposed by humans.

     The ending of a MMP election does not have to be resolved by using the
party list method. We can use Choice Voting(STV). We would need to allow
the voters to rank the parties. The question is: which quota do we use? -
the Hare or the Droop. I favor the Hare. If Hare was used and if the
transferred votes were evenly divided to the other parties, we would get
the same results as in the first part of Olli's example.

          Party   Votes     Hare     Hare
                          Quotient   Seats
            A      550      7.26       7
            B      470      6.20       6
            C      250      3.30       4
            D      170      2.24       2

     If Droop is used and again if the transferred voted are evenly divided
to the other parties, we will get the following results:

          Party   Votes    Droop     Droop
                          Quotient   Seats
            A      550      7.64       8
            B      470      6.53       6
            C      250      3.47       3
            D      170      2.36       2

     Again we see that the increase of the divisor results in favoring the
largest party. Olli's example helps us to see that Droop favors the larger
political parties. Droop results are non-erratic because Droop's purpose is
to help the larger political parties.  Droop is doing its thing.

     Getting back to the remainders: the best solution is to use ranked
parties, Choice Voting, and Hare quota.

Regards,
Donald




     \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
     ///                 N E W    D E M O C R A C Y                ///
     \\\ Home of Citizen's Democracy   http://www.mich.com/~donald \\\
     /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////