[EM] Median-based Proportional Representation

[Toby Pereira]

I had a look at your system - 
http://www.mail-archive.com/election-methods@lists.electorama.com/msg07066.html -
 I think I might have to look at it again to get it! But one thing about 
percentiles. As I understand it, people often disagree about how to calculate 
percentiles. The one I agree with on here - 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentile - is the one recommended by NIST. Where 
P is the percentile and N is the population, the ranked posistion would be P/100 
* (N+1). Does your system have an inbuilt assumption about this?




________________________________
From: Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>
To: Toby Pereira <tdp201b at yahoo.co.uk>
Cc: electorama list <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
Sent: Sat, 9 July, 2011 0:27:12
Subject: Re: [EM] Median-based Proportional Representation




I've told Warren to change that, and he hasn't given me a clear criterion for 
what I have to do so he will. I've created a system called AT-TV which is PR and 
reduces to a median-based system in the single-winner case. It's Bucklin-like, 
in that there is a falling approval threshold, and when a candidate gets enough 
approvals to be elected (a Droop quota) they are, which "uses up" those votes 
(except for the excess). So in a one-winner case, it's based on 50th percentile 
(median), but in, for instance, a 3-winner case, it would be (pseudo-)maximizing 
the elected candidates' 75th-percentile score, not their 50th-percentile. I 
think this is the appropriate thing to do in the multi-winner "median" case. 


JQ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20110709/f175f310/attachment-0004.htm>