> On 7.6.2012, at 5.21, Michael Ossipoff wrote: > > > Sainte-Lague isn't the only PR formula that is unbiased with respect to > party-size, but it's the only unbiased formula that doesn't share the > avoidable errors of STV and Largest Remainder. > > > > Largest Reminder has some paradoxes but I wouldn't call them errors.
No, but I'd call its _errors_ errors. Largest Remainder and STV have a random fluctuation about the most proportional seat-allocation. Those were the errors I referred to. They result in greater deviations from proportionality. As for the paradoxes, they don' t really bother me. I think STV would be fine (if we could get over the notion that STV has to have small districts). The unbiased random fluctuations don't bother me either. But, for a list system, there's no need to allow that particular avoidable error, and so it should be avoided. For a list system, there is no excuse to not use the optimally proportional Sainte-Lague. Likewise, for a list system, where Sainte-Lague is available, there's no reason to allow the paradoxes by using Largest Remainder. > Usually > those properties can also not be exploited as strategies. The possibly surprising > seat allocations in the Alabama paradox can be said to be fair and not > problematic. True. But, along with the random unbiased greater deviations from proportionality, the paradoxes are entirely avoidable, in a party list system, by using Sainte-Lague instead of Largest-Remainder. > > > Also, I like emphasis on party platforms instead of personalities and > hairdo, etc. > > But I recognize that many would like to vote for individuals, even in a PR > election. Of course that can be done in open list systems, such as those > in > Belgium, Luxembourg and Switzerland. The best of both worlds: Optimal > proportionality and opportunity to support individual candidates. > > > Some people support the idea of reducing the role and power of the parties to > the minimum. They may like STV since in it the party stucture is not binding but > just possible background information. You refer to party platforms as an > alternative to electing representatives based on personalities and hairdo. I > symphatize also that since it is also good if the political system is stable, simple > to the voters and also binding to the elected representatives. In the party / > grouping based approach regular voters will in some sense know better than > what they will get than in a system that is based only on the smiling faces and > smooth talk of the candidates. I think in an ideal system we need a good balance > between these needs and different directions of interest - ability to influence on > which individuals will be elected, and having a clear political map and directions > available to the voters. Of course, in Australia's STV, the voter can vote _above the line_, to vote for a party's STV ranking, thereby making it easier for the voter, and encouraging hir to vote for a platform instead of for individual people. Either would be fine, STV or Sainte-Lague. I'd prefer a Sainte-Lague party list system, maybe with open lists. > > Open lists typically have the problem that within the party there are no > guarantees that different wings of the party will bet the correct proportional > number of seats. The methods may approximate this to some extent, but we > could do better too. It is for example possible to combine open lists and STV by > allowing voters to rank candidates within the party list. (Abiliy to mix and rank > candidates > I'd > thought that Finland had open list, but Juho says that they don't. > > > > Finland uses open lists. The seat number of each district is calculated before the > election based on population and Largest Reminder. Within each district (of > different size) the seats are allocated to the parties using D'Hondt. Within the > parties candidates with highest number of votes will get the seats. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_parliamentary_election,_2011 Yes, when I read of the open list systems of Finland, Belgium, Luxembourg and Switzerland, I preferred the Finnish system because of its elegant simplicity. Maybe what you'd said was that Finland doesn't use a topping-up system, where the parties seat totals from districts are augmented to bring each party's total seats up to what a national PR count says they should have. Mike Ossipoff ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info