[EM] General PR question (from Andy Jennings in 2011)

[Kathy Dopp]

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Toby Pereira <tdp201b at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> From: Kathy Dopp <kathy.dopp at gmail.com>
>
>>Yes. I see.  Do you think these three results *should* be equally
>>proportional according to your measure?
>
>>With nonoverlapping support:
>
>># voters,  winning candidate set
>>150, 1
>>50,  1
>>50,  0
>
>>150,  2
>>50,    0
>>50,    0
>
>>150, 1
>>50,  0
>>50,  1
>
>>All three candidate sets for two winners for this scenario get the
>>same value of your measure:  0.021462585
>
> Yes. That's exactly how I would want a system to behave. Would you agree?
>

I'm not sure Toby.  The first and third options are definitely not
proportional, but it does seem OK. Ideally, there should be four
candidates to divy up with such a split.

Perhaps there ought to be a way to vary the number of winning seats
within reason to achieve as proportionally fair outcomes.

-- 

Kathy Dopp
Town of Colonie, NY 12304
 "A little patience, and we shall see ... the people, recovering their
true sight, restore their government to its true principles." Thomas
Jefferson

Fundamentals of Verifiable Elections
http://kathydopp.com/wordpress/?p=174

View my working papers on my SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/author=1451051