Mostly I agree with you. One small quibble: Yes. While the current form of my PDF measure makes representation > proportional for the balance of regions having diverse population > densities, you are right that if the slope of the level of > partisanship is dissimilar to the slope of the level of population > density, then it won't be a perfect measure. > > I agree with you that this flaw (that partisanship levels may not vary > strictly linearly with population density) cannot be overcome using a > nonpartisan measure.
This flaw is that one-sided partisanship may not be *proportional* with ordinal population density. The idea that partisanship may not even be * linear* with population density (ordinal or cardinal) is a totally separate flaw; one which I'd mentioned and provisionally discounted as insignificant (as long as plans are also reasonably compact) in my earlier message. > However, the PDF measure still balances the representation among urban > and rural districts very nicely and will tend, in today's situation of > population distribution to balance the partisan representation. > This sounds plausible to me, but it would be great if you had evidence. Can you run the PDF numbers for existing proportional, compact, pro-Democrat, and pro-Republican filibuster proposals for a representative state (such as FL)? I know that that's not a trivial project at all, but it would make your paper truly fascinating. Jameson > I'll go back to my spreadsheet and input the partisanship variable to > do further testing. > > Thanks. > > Kathy > > http://electionmathematics.org > Town of Colonie, NY 12304 > "One of the best ways to keep any conversation civil is to support the > discussion with true facts." > "Renewable energy is homeland security." > > Fundamentals of Verifiable Elections > http://kathydopp.com/wordpress/?p=174 > > View some of my research on my SSRN Author page: > http://ssrn.com/author=1451051 >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
