[EM] Replies to Craig Carey and David Catchpole

[David Catchpole]

On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Donald E Davison wrote:
> 
> Craig:
> >  +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
> >  |   It would be 'unethical' to promote any method except the best   |
> >  +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

Ah... but what if there is no "best" method?! (more further down)

> David Catchpole wrote: "I challenge you to come up with a scenario where
> Droop does worse than Hare for some measure of proportionality."
> 
> Dear David Catchpole, I accept the challenge. The above example is my
> scenario in which Droop does worst than Hare. (Your challenge did not
> deserve a separate post)

As my little sister used to say- "Awhawhaw!" Actually, now Markus
has provided a good example of Hare doing _precisely the opposite_ of
what you scream it does in relation to Droop, I feel more secure in saying
that the "example" you provide is absolute b*******. It doesn't meet my
challenge- which is to demonstrate that for some degree of proportionality
(that is, some aggregate function of the ratios of elected members to
votes for them / their parties), Hare is better than Droop (guess what!
Markus has already provided the opposite demonstration!)