# Capping the Proxy Monster

New Democracy donald at mich.com
Fri Feb 21 06:58:50 PST 1997

```Dear list members,

Steve wrote: If capping is a good idea, what would be a good % ?

Donald writes: If anyone feels that they must embrace the Proxy Monster
then I say Yes - by all means cap the monster.

BUT! - get your math in order.

The cap must be a function of the number of seats. Steve at on time
advanced a cap of four percent - which will not mathematically fit with any
body less than twenty-five.

I do not advocate proxy voting but dare I suggest an equation.

I suggest - and this is only a suggestion - that you pick a factor
greater than one - times the number of votes (or one hundred percent) - and
then divide by the number of seats.
(Factor>one)X(100%)
Cap equal to   -------------------------------
Number of Seats in Body

Also you should decide when you are going to transfer the excess votes
over the cap - it will make a difference in who gets elected and also a
difference on how many votes each winner will have in the lawmaking body. I
suggest - here I go suggesting again - that the excess votes be transferred
at the same time and the same way as is done in Preference Voting.

When I worked some real ballots from a real election for Proxy method,
the results had one different candidate elected than what I got from
Preference Voting. The Proxy winners are:

34 A   53 B   46 G   35 H   92 N   32 O   24 P   58 Q   139 S

Candidate P is the different winner. I used no cap - the four percent
cap that Steve suggested would not work on this election. If a proper size
cap was used candidate P may not have been a winner.

Yours,

Donald Eric Davison of New Democracy at http://www.mich.com/~donald

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

```