<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, Sans-Serif;font-size:13px"><div><span></span></div><div>I suppose the way I see it is that if 1000 people vote for the party A candidates, and 500 people vote for the party B candidates, then the result A1, A2, B1 is proportional because effectively each candidate represents 500 voters. Why should a larger group have more candidates assigned to them? I'd argue that it's because it gives each individual the same amount of representation. I know the A voters actually have 2 candidates so in a sense have twice as much representation as the B voters, but it's shared with twice as many voters. So in terms of having their own unique representative, each voter has 1/500 of a candidate to themselves. If we look at it in terms of A voters having two candidates each and B voters having one candidate each, it just looks as
though some people are getting a better deal than others for no particular reason.</div><div><br></div><div>By separating factions into the individuals that make the factions, I think it becomes easier to come up with a system that can cope with voters partially agreeing with each other. Obviously if voters don't have agreement with enough other voters (say, 1/s) then they will struggle to get a representative. And a single individual not getting a candidate elected will do less harm to my squared deviation measure than a large faction. So the method I've described does still reward voters for being in groups and works like other proportional methods, but just happens not to work on the level of factions. STV is the same. It works on the level of individual voters having a single vote that can be transferred from their first choice. And when A1, A2 and B1 are elected, it is because 500 people are assigned to each candidate, not because 1000 are assigned
to A1 and to A2 and just 500 to B1. My method doesn't assign a voter to one particular candidate but rates their total representation from all elected candidates in a similar manner.</div><div><br></div><div>Toby</div><div><br><blockquote style="padding-left: 5px; margin-top: 5px; margin-left: 5px; border-left-color: rgb(16, 16, 255); border-left-width: 2px; border-left-style: solid;"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, Sans-Serif; font-size: 13px;"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, Sans-Serif; font-size: 12px;"> <div dir="ltr"> <div class="hr" style="margin: 5px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); border-image: none; height: 0px; line-height: 0; font-size: 0px;" contenteditable="false" readonly="true"></div> <font face="Arial" size="2"> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">From:</span></b> Kathy Dopp <a
href="mailto:kathy.dopp@gmail.com">kathy.dopp@gmail.com</a><br></font><br clear="none">I think that's stretching it to claim every single voter should have<br clear="none">proportional representation. E.g. How much is 0.0005 representation<br clear="none">worth? It seems to me that, in truth, we must be part of a larger<br clear="none">group of size at least 1/s to effectively influence a legislature.<br clear="none">However, I'll keep an open mind and reflect on it.<br clear="none"></div><div class="y_msg_container"><div class="qtdSeparateBR"><br><br></div><div class="yqt9809090338" id="yqtfd58079"><br clear="none">Kathy Dopp</div><br clear="none"><div class="yqt9809090338" id="yqtfd84756"><br clear="none"></div><br><br></div> </div> </div> </blockquote><div></div> </div></body></html>