[EM] David Wetzel, re:

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

David:

MO:1. Proportional Representation is obsolete, now that we have
technology to easily implement Proxy Direct Democracy. (I discussed
Proxy DD in a fairly recent post).

You said:

dlw: I will look into it if you ask me kindly to do so and provide me
a link to a good summary of it.

[endquote]

I don't ask you kindly to do so. That's up to you. But I will tell you this: A good summary of it
can be found in a recent posting by me at this forum. I'll look up the date
of the posting, and will post that date, and a copy of the Proxy DD discussion
in that posting.

MO: 2. Largest Remainder, with the Hare quota, doesn't favor small parties. It's


unbiased with respect to party-size. But it's also not very proportional.

You said:

  Unlike most forms of PR,
it [your Hare Largest Remainder] doesn't require quotas.

Then it isn't Largest Remainder. The designation "Hare" refers to
the use of the Hare quota.

MO:It has lots of random deviation from proportionality.

You said:

dlw:*Random?*   

[endquote]

Yes. I don't know what you're calling Largest Remainder, but real Largest Remainder
randomly deviates from proportionality.


You said:

...  That is
what I mean when it favors small parties.  

[endquote]

Fine. Then it isn't Largest Remainder with the Hare quota.

You said:

It is not a random
deviation from proportionality.

[endquote]

Again, then it ish't LR.