[EM] Largest-Remainder

[Michael Ossipoff]

Juho:

In your explanation of "minimizing violated pinions", you described
your own interpretation of proportionality.

If you're interested in proportionality, the matter of optimally equal
representation per voter, I've told you where to read about it.

If you're interested in minimizing violated opinions, then PR is not for you.

If I were doing PR, I'd be glad to instruct you in proportionality.
And, if so, I'd be glad to walk you through the subject and and
explain to you your specific errors. But, as I said, I no longer do
PR.

As it is, I can only refer you to the sources that I cited. Read them
conscientiously, and don't cling to your assumptions.

It's arrogant to believe that you're more qualified in a subject, when
you don't want to take the time to study it.

Don't cheat yourself in that way.

That's my best advice for you.

Now, forgive me if I say a few things that I've already said. I'm
saying it with other things that I haven't said.

For allocating seats to parties:

I used to prefer Sainte-Lague (as recently as earlier in this
discussion), because I felt that if you want PR at all, then you might
as well get the best pure proportionality.

Also, I guess I was influenced by others, who believed that the Repubs
& Dems would remain the big 2, and wanted the small parties to get
their fair share. I bought into that feeling.

But I have more confidence in the voters than that. That's why I
prefer single-seat districts, or at least the use of a good
single-winner method instead of PR. I believe that if some of the
small parties are better, then they won't remain small for long, when
Approval is in use. But, as I said, I have nothing against PR--I just
don't consider it necessary at all. But of course PR would be a lot
better than Plurality or Runoff. I'm convinced that if the voters can
support what they really like, then there will be all the improvement
we could ask for.

As I said, PR isn't viable here anyway, because it's a drastically
different notion of representation and govt--whereas a better
single-winner method is nothing other than a better way of doing what
we already do--electing candidates to single-member districts.

Because I don't consider PR necessary anyway, For allocating seats to
parties, I now prefer d'Hondt, with its balance between
proportionality and majoritarianism. (and, for STV, the Droop quota,
for the same reason). Someone who doesn't consider PR necessary at all
has no reason to insist on the purest all-out un-compromised Plurality
of Sainte-Lague.

But it just depends on what you want. I have no criticism of
Sainte-Lague, or for the goal of optimally equal representation per
person that requires  Sainte-Lague.

In fact, as I said, any of the PR systems and methods would be fine.

Allocating seats to districts:

That's a whole other ballgame. For that application, there's really no
room for debate. Living in a some particular district is very
different from preferring an unpopular party. If the party that you
like best is unpopular, then that's the way it goes. But, regardless
of which district you reside in, you have an obvious right to equal
representation. To the greatest extent possible, you have a right to
as much representation as anyone else. That's why Sainte-Lague is the
way to allocate seats to districts.

When allocating seats to districts, the question is: Do you or do you
not want as much representation as the other people? If so, then the
answer is Sainte-Lague. But, if you're happy with avoidably less
representation than other people have, that's your business, and it
isn't for me to tell you what you should want.

Mike Ossipoff