[EM] David Catchpole's Droop Quota [???]

[David Catchpole]

On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Donald E Davison wrote:

> Greetings,
> 
> David Catchpole wrote: "The equal portions of total votes is Droop quota."
> 
> Dear David Catchpole,
> 
>      Your remark makes me wonder if we have the same or different math for
> the Droop Quota. The Droop that I know will add one in the divisor to `n',
> the number of seats, and then add one to the results.
> 
>      Droop Quota = (total votes)/(n+1) + 1

This is a rough, but the most ubiquitously legislated, version (the best
version simply requires any number of votes greater than (total
votes)/(n+1). (more further down)

>      If so, then I must inform you that this does not divide total votes
> into `n' equal parts.

It provides an equal quota for winning to every candidate. Hare, as the
new saying goes, involves an arsend quota of 1/2n. Hare certainly doesn't
divide votes into equal parts. (more further down)

>      But, Hare will divide total votes into `n' equal parts.
> 
>      I raise the question of maybe different math because about two years
> ago, I was engaged in a debate on Droop with another fine person from
> Australia,  Alan Grieve <algri1 at rainbow.net.au>, who was supporting the
> Droop Quota. The debate ended when it became clear that his understanding
> of Hare and Droop had reverse mathematics.

On the point of "Down Under" mathematics- refer to Markus Schultz's
recent example of where Hare goes very, very, wrong- in direct
contradiction to the "math" you've been spruiking. I know Alan and I
might invite him over to give you another tongue lashing. I doubt very
much that he declared defeat. Maybe you should provide verbatim
(or rather, emailatim) copies of your "discussion" with Alan so we can see
for ourselves who "won." (more further down)

>      Is David Catchpole another good Australian who supports the Droop
> Quota because, that is the `right and proper thing' for a good Australian
> to do??

I might remind you that every majoritarian single-member system in the
world also has a Droop quota- 1/2 of the total vote. Think about it and
its implications for multiple member systems.

I have to insist that my standing for Droop has nothing to do with some 
crappy nationalism through its use in my country- though my knowledge of
it and my observing it in practice allows me to see better its superiority
over any other quota. We have, on this list, a German and a large number
of Americans whose names do not begin with the letter "D" who will agree
with me, even though Droop is not practiced in their region.