On 14.6.2012, at 23.45, Michael Ossipoff wrote: > If the district's population is off by one person, > that's nothing compared to the amount by which even the best PR system > will put it off, when allocating seats to fixed districts.
Could you give me an example (or a formula or some other exact definition on what goes wrong). Do you compare adjustable districts to fixed districts or single-member districts to multi-member districts? > And I don't criticize your preference for keeping Largest-Remainder, > for reasons of historical tradition It's ok to me with or without historical tradition. > 1) Our single member districts aren't as small as you think they are. > As of 2008, our House of Representatives Congressional districts each > contained about 699, 000 people. I talked about single-member and multi-member districts in general. If we combine all single-member districts into one multi-member district, we will have ideal representation density. That must be at lest as good as the representation density of any of the single-member districts. (representation_density = number_of_representatives / population) Isn't it so that also if we combine some of the single-member districts into one multi-member district, we tend to get at least as good representation density, if we compare e.g. the sum of deviation from the ideal representation density over all people? Juho ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
