[EM] IIAC. Juho: Census re-districting instead of PR for allocating seats to districts.

[Juho Laatu]

On 24.6.2012, at 9.36, Michael Ossipoff wrote:

> But remember that, to get one thing, you give up something else. What
> are you giving up to get LR's optimization?

You already know. Some well known paradoxes + non-monotonicity with respect number of seats. These may be problematic or may be what you want, depending on your needs.

> So what are you getting?

You already know this one too (maybe your questions are just rhetorical). You get an optimal method if your target is to minimize deviation from ideal proportionality in number of people.

>> Divisor methods focus on ratios of people and representatives. Why should that be the only approach that people should use?
> 
> Because equal representation for all people is the goal.

Do you have an exact formulation on what you think is the crucial property that makes SL optimal or best in "equal representation" that all should follow (at least when compared to LR)? You focus very much on optimization of seats per quota, although you also agree that not even SL does perfect job here. I guess we have already agreed to disagree on the optimality of SL, but if you have an exact definition on what "SL's optimal proportionality" is, that could provide some more material for discussion.

>>> Surely no one would deny that the number of representatives that a Hare quota of people has is its "representation".
>> 
>> I note that although you wrote these words to support Saint-Laguë, they work also against it. Let's say we have proportions 61-13-13-13. SL allocates the seats 2-1-1-1. The number of quotas of each district/party has is 3.05 - 0.65 - 0.65 - 0.65. The third full quota of the largest district/party does not get its seat. Shouldn't all quotas get their representation?
> 
> Yes. Every Hare quota in my district should have as much
> representation as do the Hare quotas in your district. But look at
> what you're doing: Again, you're fragmenting the situation. ...the
> Hare quotas this time. Looking at a particular piece of a Hare quota
> and saying "This fraction of a Hare quota has no representation."

No. What I said was that a _full_ Hare quota of voters has no representation in the first district/party (1.05 quotas to be exact). Do you think that's how allocation should be done?

Juho