[EM] General PR question (from Andy Jennings in 2011)
Toby Pereira
tdp201b at yahoo.co.uk
Mon Oct 6 09:39:06 PDT 2014
From: Kathy Dopp <kathy.dopp at gmail.com>
>Toby, in your first new example were maximizing, rather than
>minimizing my formula -- Thus misusing to find the LEAST
>proportionate, rather than the MOST proportionate set of winning
>candidates because the least number of people have disproportionate
>representation overall when my formula is minimized.>In your second new example minimizing my formula would give exactly
>the set of winning candidates you prefer. Try it. >Kathy Dopp
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying I calculated the numbers incorrectly? If not, then in the first example 2/0 gave a score of 100.505 (lower - more proportional) and 1/1 gave a score of 101 (higher - less proportional), so 2 seats to the largest faction was the winning result.
In the second example, 2/0 gave a score of 101.502 (higher - less proportional) and 1/1 gave a score of 100.002 (lower - more proportional), so one seat each was the winning result, so the result swapped depending on whether the smallest faction had 1 or 3 voters (and no seats allocated in either case).
Toby
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20141006/24287604/attachment.htm>
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list