[EM] A Valid Reason to have a Lower Quota

[Donald E Davison]

Greetings,

Richard Lung wrote:
>From one member being elected on over half  the votes, two members
are each elected on over a third the votes, three members on over one-
quarter the votes, etc, in larger constituencies.

Dear Richard Lung,

     I wish to thank you for a very important reason.

     Of all the persons who have told me why they support the Droop Quota,
you are the first person to give me a decent reason to have a lower quota
than Hare. I can see a reason in the text above. If that text is part of a
larger context, I would like a copy of the full text.

     This, what you have written, has convinced me to support a lower quota.
     It is unacceptable to have a number of members elected by less than a
majority of the quota.
     A lower quota should be used, but only low enough so that the last
member is elected by a majority of that lower quota.
     The Droop is not necessarily this lower quota. The proper lower quota
may be greater or lower than the Droop quota.

     Meek STV is one way to seek this proper lower quota, provided the
count started with the Hare quota. But Meek is overrated. It has too much
math for what the math does for us.
     I suggest that we have a series of counts, starting with the Hare
quota and then using lower quotas until the last member is elected with a
majority of the last quota used. After the first election, we will know
about how low to start the first count for the next election, and then
merely go up or down a bit more.
     In some elections that last quota may very well be the same as the
Droop Quota, but whatever lower quota is used it should be determined by a
process of selecting different quotas until we have the correct quota, and
it should not be a quota imposed on the election, like the Droop is imposed
on current STV elections.

     In a small election the Droop Quota is too low. For example in the
Cambridge election the first runner up has a vote count almost equal to the
Droop quota. It is offensive to have that many votes left over to be
disqualified. The first runner-up should have less than a majority of a
quota.

    While I am opposed to the last member being elected by less than a
majority, I am also opposed to the first runner-up ending up with a near
quota of votes. The ideal is for all votes to be divided equally between
the elected members.

Regards,
Donald

   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
   |                         Q U O T A T I O N                         |
   |  "Democracy is a beautiful thing,                                 |
   |       except that part about letting just any old yokel vote."    |
   |                            - Age 10                               |
   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

                            N E W S L E T T E R

                    Worldwide Direct Democracy Newsletter
                     Four Issues per Year by Postal Mail
             Cost per year: Czech Republic 200 Kc,  Europe 12 DM
                          Outside of Europe  $10

              Make check payable to: Mr. Bohuslav Binka
              Mail to:  Mr. Bohuslav Binka
                        Bellova 15
                        Brno 623 00
                        Czech Republic
          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                         N E W    D E M O C R A C Y
              A Source of Study Material for Political Change

                        http://www.mich.com/~donald
          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -