On 14.6.2012, at 9.13, Michael Ossipoff wrote: >> >>>> I also note that of course the differences in regional disproportionality >>>> due to the sizes of multi-member districts are much smaller than regional >>>> >disproportionality caused by single-member districts. >>> >>> Not a valid comparison. Single member districts aren't intended or >>> meant to be proportional. >> >> I meant regional proportionality (not political proportionality), i.e. >> making the number of representatives per population equal in each area. >> > > In that case, then single member districts, drawn with equal > population, can have perfectly equal regional proportionality, as > exactly equal as desired. So your statement quoted at the top of this > post is incorrect. Equal district representation per person.
In practice there will be some border drawing problems and some rounding errors. It is not easy to draw the border line e.g. in the middle of a twin bed to make the districts equal in size :-). Also if we assume that there are N seats and the population is N+1, one of the single-member districts will have only half of the "representation density" of all other districts. But if we divide the same country in two multi-member districts (whose sizes could be just approximately similar) we will have better regional proportionality (representation density is close to 1 seat per 1 person in both districts). Juho > > Mike Ossipoff > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
