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

[Michael Ossipoff]

On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 4:32 AM, Juho Laatu <juho4880 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> 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.


[endquote]

No. Worse than that. LR makes random, often great, increases in the
greatest difference in the districts' representation per person.

You said:


> These may be problematic or may be what you want, depending on your needs.
>
> [endquote]
>
>
>


 It isn't problematic if the people in the district with drastically,
unnecessarily, less representation per person don't mind that :-)

>
> > 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.
>

[endquote]

I've already acknowledged that optimization that LR has. As I said before,
it's a a global property, aesthetically approving to us who look at it (but
who don't live in the drastically under-represented districts).


>
> >> 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.


So what if SL isn't optimal for equality of S/Q? It does dramatically
better than LR in that regard, and that's sufficient for this discussion.

You ask for an exact formulation of the crucial property that makes SL [not
optimal, but better than LR] in equal representation for people.

SL finds the allocation that results from dividing each district's
population by the same number, and then rounding off each district's
division result.

(that common divisor is chosen so as to result in the desired total number
of seats).

Thereby, SL puts each district's allocation as close as possible to its
ideal proportional share of the desired seat total.

That means that it's putting all of the districts' seat-allocation as close
as possible to the same number.

And that means that it's putting all of the districts' seat allocations
quite close to eachother.

That accomplishment shows in SL's transfer property:

Starting with an SL seat allocation, if you take a seat from one district,
and give it to another district, that will always put their S/Q farther
part than it initially was.

You said:


> I guess we have already agreed to disagree on the optimality of SL


[endquote]

 No we don't. I said that SL isn't optimal. But SL is  nevertheless better
than LR, when it comes to respecting people's right to equal
representation. Why? See above.


You said:

, but if you have an exact definition on what "SL's optimal
proportionality" is, that could provide some more material for discussion.

[endquote]

SL isn't optimal. See above, for why SL is better than LR in regards to
respecting people's right to equal representation.

Why use SL if it isn't optimal? Because it's simple, because it has much
precedent, and because it does very well a giving people equal
representation (see above).


> 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."
You replied:

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).



No? Yes. What you said was exactly the statement that i was referring to.
In your above-quoted sentence, you claim that a full Hare quota of voters
has no representation in district A (in my example). That statement is
incorrect. In district A, as in all 3 districts, no one is without
representation. You see, your above-quoted sentence again states that
fiction that I referred to. The fiction that there are voters with no
representation. There aren't. Everyone in district A has representation.
Each person's representation in district A equals the number of seats
possessed by district A, divided by the population of district A.

And that quantity, the representation per person, is the quantity that SL
does a very good job of making as equal as possible. As I said, SL does a
very good job of granting people's right to equal representation.  ...for
the reasons that I described above.

Mike Ossipoff

You asked:

Do you think that's how allocation should be done?
[endquote]

Yes.

Mike Ossipoff




>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120624/66fe295a/attachment-0004.htm>