# [EM] SL vs LR--Rounding is unavoidalbe because allocations are integer

raphfrk at netscape.net raphfrk at netscape.net
Sun Dec 10 13:32:07 PST 2006

> From: juho4880 at yahoo.co.uk
> On Dec 10, 2006, at 20:50 , MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
> > But
> > rounding is quite unavoidable, since fractional seats can't be
> > given (or at least are against the rules).
>
> I agree. All methods lead to rounding errors (unless we cut the
> candidates in fractions or give them unequal voting power :-).

What about charging each State 1 seat for every seat they are
allocated. If a State receives to few seats in one election,
they will receive a compensating one in a future election.

The long term average number of seats allocated to the State
would be exactly proportional.

For example:

Each State has a seat total that is not cleared from election to
election. This total counts in fractional seats.

When a seat is allocated, the State that receives the seat's total
is decreased by 1 seat. All States, including the one that
received the seat, then have their total increased by State
Population divided by National Population.

A seat is always allocated to the State with the highest total, or
using some tie-break rule if there is a tie.

The sum of all the State's totals will always equal zero. A
State with a positive score has been under allocated seats based
on its population, and the State with the highest score will thus
be most entitled to the next seat. I don't think it is possible
for any State to exceed +1, but am not sure.

One issue is that the totals are likely to get a bit hairy as they
are fractions. It might be worth specifically setting an accuracy
required (say 1/1000 of a seat).

Another issue is that there is a certain amount of randomness.

Finally, handling small States would require a kludge. Perhaps,
make a rule that they must be allocated a seat at the end, but that
it isn't included as part of the totals. This would mean that
sometimes they would get a seat directly and sometimes they would
get a seat due to the exception to the normal rules.

A different option would be to allow States to form super States.

This would be like the idea to allow parties to form sub-groups.

Two States might be entitled to 4.4 and 5.8 seats each. This would
give them 4 and 5 seats each and 1 seat that is common to the 2 States.
Probably when voting the votes for the 2nd State would count for more as
the seat is more closely theirs.

Raphfrk
--------------------
Interesting site
"what if anyone could modify the laws"

www.wikocracy.com

________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20061210/e81a2d14/attachment-0003.htm>

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list