[EM] General PR question (from Andy Jennings in 2011)
Toby Pereira
tdp201b at yahoo.co.uk
Sun Oct 5 12:58:16 PDT 2014
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 2:02 AM, Toby Pereira <tdp201b at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> From: Kathy Dopp <kathy.dopp at gmail.com>
>
>
>> Well, it changes the overall proportion they should have, but it does not
>> change the 5:3 correct ratio of A to B seats.
>Yes. However, it changes the NUMBER of seats allocated in the 5:3
>ratio, allocating those seats in EXACTLY proportional fashion. I.e.>For three seats:>5 voters 1.875 seats gives 2 seats
>3 voters 1.125 seats gives 1 seat>For four seats:>5 voters 2.5 seats - a tie for the forth seat gives 2 or 3 seats
>3 voters 1.5 seats - a tie for the forth seat gives 2 or 1 seats>It's just SIMPLE arithmetic.>If you don't like it, then you are arguing AGAINST PROPORTIONAL
>representation, which is your right.
The example wasn't about three or four seats. It was about four seats both times and who was more deserving of the fourth seat out of A and B with or without C's inclusion. (It doesn't matter that you might argue that C is more deserving than either when present because we can still order non-winning allocations in terms of proportionality.)
>> I would argue that if [SNIPPED]
>Yes. I AGREE and so does my formula minimization algorithm.
OK - I should have added that it is specifically with factions 1 and 2 having the same voting patterns. I'll formulate it differently and give a specific example. So I would argue that if
Faction 1: x seatsFaction 2: y seatsFaction 3: z seats
is more proportional than
Faction 1: x-1seatsFaction 2: y+1 seatsFaction 3: z seats
then if the only change in votes concerns faction 3, this would mean that
Faction 1: x seatsFaction 2: y seatsFaction 3: z seats
is still more proportional than
Faction 1: x-1seatsFaction 2: y+1 seatsFaction 3: z seats
For example:
2 to elect
Faction 1: 302Faction 2: 100Faction 3: 1
The proportional allocations are:
Faction 1: 1.499Faction 2: 0.496Faction 3: 0.005
Faction 1 would win both seats. However, if we have:
Faction 1: 302Faction 2: 100Faction 3: 3
The proportional allocations are:
Faction 1: 1.491Faction 2: 0.494Faction 3: 0.015
This would make it one seat all between factions 1 and 2. This is why I would argue that there are better definitions of proportionality than your method.
Toby
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20141005/01a84633/attachment.htm>
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list