Raph Frank wrote: > The problem I would have with your idea is that it > encourages long voter chains (at least near the top).
Yes, I see what you mean. My algorithm can only be an approximation because it breaks down for extreme trees. Your's is better: > 1) Use d'Hondt to split seats between all root candidates OK. I thought a simple division would split them neatly, but I guess it requires d'Hondt (or some other highest averages method) to properly handle the remainders: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest_averages_method > 2) Each candidate, who receives seats, takes one. > > 3) Algorithm is applied recursively, with each candidate assigning > any spare seats to his clients proportionally. Right, so the assembly is deeply proportional. > This doesn't handle loops well/at all. It basically requires a tree > structure. The general structure of a delegate cascade is actually a cyclic graph. But cycles can occur only at the bottom of each casacade, where they result in pools. Pools are equivalent to roots, so d'Hondt (etc.) should still work. Now I see another use for this algorithm. I figure I can use it to summarize the election results. A pruned forest of trees is a better summary than a ranked list of candidates, even for ordinary elections (single office or norm). -- Michael Allan Toronto, 647-436-4521 http://zelea.com/ ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
