<HTML><BODY>
<div>> From: juho4880@yahoo.co.uk<br>
> On Dec 10, 2006, at 20:50 , MIKE <span class="correction" id="">OSSIPOFF</span> wrote:<br>
> > But<br>
> > rounding is quite unavoidable, since fractional seats can't be<br>
> > given (or at least are against the rules).<br>
><br>
> I agree. All methods lead to rounding errors (unless we cut the<br>
> candidates in fractions or give them unequal voting power :-).<br>
<br>
What about charging each State 1 seat for every seat they are<br>
allocated. If a State receives to few seats in one election,<br>
they will receive a compensating one in a future election.<br>
<br>
The long term average number of seats allocated to the State<br>
would be exactly proportional.<br>
<br>
For example:<br>
<br>
Each State has a seat total that is not cleared from election to<br>
election. This total counts in fractional seats.<br>
<br>
When a seat is allocated, the State that receives the <span class="correction" id="">seat's</span> total<br>
is decreased by 1 seat. All States, including the one that<br>
received the seat, then have their total increased by State <br>
Population divided by National Population.<br>
<br>
A seat is always allocated to the State with the highest total, or<br>
using some tie-break rule if there is a tie.<br>
<br>
The sum of all the State's totals will always equal zero. A<br>
State with a positive score has been <span class="correction" id="">under allocated</span> seats based<br>
on its population, and the State with the highest score will thus<br>
be most entitled to the next seat. I don't think it is possible<br>
for any State to exceed +1, but am not sure.<br>
<br>
One issue is that the totals are likely to get a bit hairy as they<br>
are fractions. It might be worth specifically setting an accuracy<br>
required (say 1/1000 of a seat).<br>
<br>
Another issue is that there is a certain amount of randomness.<br>
<br>
Finally, handling small States would require a kludge. Perhaps,<br>
make a rule that they must be allocated a seat at the end, but that<br>
it isn't included as part of the totals. This would mean that<br>
sometimes they would get a seat directly and sometimes they would<br>
get a seat due to the exception to the normal rules.<br>
<br>
A different option would be to allow States to form super States.<br>
<br>
This would be like the idea to allow parties to form sub-groups.<br>
<br>
Two States might be entitled to 4.4 and 5.8 seats each. This would<br>
give them 4 and 5 seats each and 1 seat that is common to the 2 States.<br>
Probably when voting the votes for the 2nd State would count for more as<br>
the seat is more closely theirs.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div style="clear: both;"><span class="correction" id="">Raphfrk</span><br>
--------------------<br>
Interesting site<br>
"what if anyone could modify the laws"<br>
<br>
<span class="correction" id="">www</span>.<span class="correction" id="">wikocracy</span>.<span class="correction" id="">com</span></div>
<div> </div>
<div id="AOLMsgPart_0_a64de089-32e8-49a0-aee9-c4140941c8b6" class="AOLPlainTextBody"><pre><tt>
</tt></pre>
</div>
<!-- end of AOLMsgPart_0_a64de089-32e8-49a0-aee9-c4140941c8b6 -->
<div class="AOLPromoFooter">
<hr style="margin-top:10px;" />
<a href="http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100122638x1081283466x1074645346/aol?redir=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eaim%2Ecom%2Ffun%2Fmail%2F" target="_blank"><b>Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail</b></a> -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.<br />
</div>
</BODY></HTML>