# [EM] proportional constraints - help needed

Peter Zbornik pzbornik at gmail.com
Wed Feb 6 10:42:33 PST 2013

```Hi Kristofer,

to be even more exact and correct:
I need not just proportionality in the ordered list as a whole (i.e.
meaning proportional ranking), but also that seats/candidates are
quoted in proportionally, i.e. that the quoted-in candidates are
proportionally distributed.

That should be the most exact framing of the problem (I hope).

P.

2013/2/6 Peter Zbornik <pzbornik at gmail.com>:
> Kristofer,
>
> to be more exact:
> I need not just proportionality in the ordered list as a whole (i.e.
> meaning proportional ranking), but also that seats/candidates are
> quoted in proportionally within each gender too.
>
> Proportionality within each gender is not needed, if the constraints are met.
>
> I.e., the guiding principle when constraints are not met and when
> deciding upon which seat to apply quotas on should be
> i. to quote-in the seat proportionally within the gender, but
> ii. without causing an unnecessary "disproportionality" within the
> ordered list.
>
> This means for instance, that if we have to decide if we should apply
> the constraint (quote-in) at seat 3, 4 or 5
> and the proportionality within the gender would be identical in each case,
> then the candidate should be quoted-in at seat 5, since seat 5 is
> "less important" than seats 3 and 4 and since there is no gain in
> proportionality within the gender by quoting in at seat 3 or 4
> compared to quoting-in at seat 5.
>
> It is necessary to quantify what "less important" above exactly means,
> but I am not sure of how to do it.
>
> P.
>
> 2013/2/6 Peter Zbornik <pzbornik at gmail.com>:
>> yes, that's it.
>>
>> P.
>>
>> 2013/2/6 Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km_elmet at lavabit.com>:
>>> On 02/05/2013 09:37 PM, Peter Zbornik wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Kristofer,
>>>>
>>>> I am afraid your approach might in some cases not lead to
>>>> proportionally distributed quoted-in candidates.
>>>>
>>>> For instance, say we have three coalitions: A, B, C.
>>>> Coalition A and B get their first place candidate
>>>> Coalition C get their second place candidate quoted-in (i.e. they
>>>> would prefer Agda, but they get Adam due to the quota rules).
>>>> Coalition A and B get the third and fourth place candidates respectively.
>>>> Coalition C, again, get their fifth place candidate quoted in (i.e.
>>>> they would prefer Erica, but they get Eric due to the quota rules).
>>>>
>>>> This approach leads to an unproportional distribution of quoted-in
>>>> seats (candidates) as Coalition C get both of the quoted-in candidates
>>>> and Coalition A and B get none.
>>>
>>>
>>> So you need not just proportionality in the group as a whole, but
>>> proportionality within each gender too?
>>>

```