[EM] PR solutions (was: Gerrymandering solutions).

[Michael Ossipoff]

> On 7.6.2012, at 5.21, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
> 
> 
> 	Sainte-Lague isn't the only PR formula that is unbiased with respect
to
> 	party-size, but it's the only unbiased formula that doesn't share
the
> 	avoidable errors of STV and Largest Remainder.
> 
> 
> 
> Largest Reminder has some paradoxes but I wouldn't call them errors. 

No, but I'd call its _errors_ errors. Largest Remainder and STV have a
random fluctuation about the most proportional seat-allocation. Those were
the errors I referred to.
They result in greater deviations from proportionality.

As for the paradoxes, they don' t really bother me. I think STV would be
fine (if we could get over the notion that STV has to have small districts).
The unbiased random fluctuations don't bother me either. But, for a list
system, there's no need to allow that particular avoidable error, and so it
should be avoided. For a list system, there is no excuse to not use the
optimally proportional Sainte-Lague.

Likewise, for a list system, where Sainte-Lague is available, there's no
reason to allow the paradoxes by using Largest Remainder.



> Usually
> those properties can also not be exploited as strategies. The possibly
surprising
> seat allocations in the Alabama paradox can be said to be fair and not
> problematic.

True. But, along with the random unbiased greater deviations from
proportionality, the paradoxes are entirely avoidable, in a party list
system, by using Sainte-Lague instead of Largest-Remainder.

> 
> 
> 	Also, I like emphasis on party platforms instead of personalities
and
> 	hairdo, etc.
> 
> 	But I recognize that many would like to vote for individuals, even
in a PR
> 	election. Of course that can be done in open list systems, such as
those
> in
> 	Belgium, Luxembourg and Switzerland. The best of both worlds:
Optimal
> 	proportionality and opportunity to support individual candidates.
> 
> 
> Some people support the idea of reducing the role and power of the parties
to
> the minimum. They may like STV since in it the party stucture is not
binding but
> just possible background information. You refer to party platforms as an
> alternative to electing representatives based on personalities and hairdo.
I
> symphatize also that since it is also good if the political system is
stable, simple
> to the voters and also binding to the elected representatives. In the
party /
> grouping based approach regular voters will in some sense know better than
> what they will get than in a system that is based only on the smiling
faces and
> smooth talk of the candidates. I think in an ideal system we need a good
balance
> between these needs and different directions of interest - ability to
influence on
> which individuals will be elected, and having a clear political map and
directions
> available to the voters.

Of course, in Australia's STV, the voter can vote _above the line_, to vote
for a party's STV ranking, thereby making it easier for the voter, and
encouraging hir to vote for a platform instead of for individual people.
Either would be fine, STV or Sainte-Lague. I'd prefer a Sainte-Lague party
list system, maybe with open lists.

> 
> Open lists typically have the problem that within the party there are no
> guarantees that different wings of the party will bet the correct
proportional
> number of seats. The methods may approximate this to some extent, but we
> could do better too. It is for example possible to combine open lists and
STV by
> allowing voters to rank candidates within the party list. (Abiliy to mix
and rank
> candidates 

> 	I'd
> 	thought that Finland had open list, but Juho says that they don't.
> 
> 
> 
> Finland uses open lists. The seat number of each district is calculated
before the
> election based on population and Largest Reminder. Within each district
(of
> different size) the seats are allocated to the parties using D'Hondt.
Within the
> parties candidates with highest number of votes will get the seats.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_parliamentary_election,_2011

Yes, when I read of the open list systems of Finland, Belgium, Luxembourg
and Switzerland, I preferred the Finnish system because of its elegant
simplicity.

Maybe what you'd said was that Finland doesn't use a topping-up system,
where the parties seat totals from districts are augmented to bring each
party's total seats up to what a national PR count says they should have.

Mike Ossipoff