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

[raphfrk at netscape.net]

 > 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>