[EM] proportional constraints - help needed

[Richard Fobes]

On 2/11/2013 2:33 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
>
> Although what I'm going to say may be a bit offtopic, I think I should
> say it. I think it could be useful to quantify exactly what is meant by
> quoted-in proportionality in the sense that the Czech Green Party
> desires it. Then one may make a "quota proportionality criterion" and
> design methods from the ground up that pass it.

In my opinion, your comment is not off-topic.

Yes, I agree that it would be nice to more clearly define the goal.

Yet I've learned that reconsidering goals is a never-ending process 
because, when a clearly defined goal is achieved, often it turns out 
that a better goal becomes evident.  (Especially if the intent behind 
the original goal was not achieved, in spite of having achieved the 
clearly stated goal.)

In this case I presume the gender-based quota requirement is a temporary 
goal.

Hopefully, as more women get elected (because of using better ballots 
and better counting methods), the need for it will disappear.

If it's easy to define the quota-based goal, such a definition would be 
useful.

But, in my opinion, spending time developing an election method that 
optimizes the clearly stated goal is not likely to provide a useful 
return on investment (ROI) -- because it must be discarded when the 
quota is no longer needed.

I think it makes more sense to use an election method that provides fair 
results in many/most situations, and do some adjustments to accommodate 
a temporary situation (such as gender bias), and then abandon those 
adjustments when the results match the ultimate goal.

Presumably the ultimate goal is "gender equality" -- which itself is 
probably worth defining clearly (although not here!).

Richard Fobes