I had a look at your system - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg07066.html - I think I might have to look at it again to get it! But one thing about percentiles. As I understand it, people often disagree about how to calculate percentiles. The one I agree with on here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentile - is the one recommended by NIST. Where P is the percentile and N is the population, the ranked posistion would be P/100 * (N+1). Does your system have an inbuilt assumption about this?
________________________________ From: Jameson Quinn <[email protected]> To: Toby Pereira <[email protected]> Cc: electorama list <[email protected]> Sent: Sat, 9 July, 2011 0:27:12 Subject: Re: [EM] Median-based Proportional Representation I've told Warren to change that, and he hasn't given me a clear criterion for what I have to do so he will. I've created a system called AT-TV which is PR and reduces to a median-based system in the single-winner case. It's Bucklin-like, in that there is a falling approval threshold, and when a candidate gets enough approvals to be elected (a Droop quota) they are, which "uses up" those votes (except for the excess). So in a one-winner case, it's based on 50th percentile (median), but in, for instance, a 3-winner case, it would be (pseudo-)maximizing the elected candidates' 75th-percentile score, not their 50th-percentile. I think this is the appropriate thing to do in the multi-winner "median" case. JQ
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
