Yes, there can be different criteria and different needs. We could use e.g. D'Hondt because also it is based on one ideal way to allocate the seats. It gives the seats to those parties that can offer the highest number of represented voters per representative. That's fair too, from one point of view. Just select the method that implements your (hopefully well defined) targets most accurately.
Juho On 19.6.2012, at 0.54, Michael Ossipoff wrote: > > > Juho: > > You said: > > > That is a quite natural measure and criterion. Maybe more so than the idea of > differences in the proportion of seats per person. Election/allocation > methods are supposed to do what the people say, and leaving some people > unnoticed or noticing non-existing ghost people sounds like exactly what the > methods should not do. > > The resulting allocation can be compared with the ideal (fractional) > allocation, and the difference can be given as number of people (easier to > understand than e.g. difference in quota). > > > > Ok, when you say it that way, I see what you mean. You're speaking of a > fairness-measure based on the number of district-residents ignored (when a > district doesn't get a remainder seat), or nonexistent people who are counted > (when a district gets a remainder seat). You'd like to minimize the sum of > those wrongs. > Alright, that's a valid concern and fairness standard. But which is more > important?: That procedural counting, or actually comparing disparities in > how much representation different people have? > > You might say that your standard is more than a procedural count, that it > genuinely measures unfairness. But does it measure fundamental unfairness as > well as the examination of disparities in different people's representation? > Isn't a person's representation really the quantity that we're interested in > these allocations? Shouldn't it be equal, as nearly as possible? > > You might say that when a district doesn't get a remainder seat, some of its > members have no representation. But examine that claim. Which members of the > district are unrepresented? Say your district doesn't get a remainder seat. > Are you unrepresented? If you say "Yes", then how can you say that?--Your > district has parliamentary seats. The parliament-members occupying those > seats represent you, as a resident of that district. Your district's seats > per person is the measure of how much representation you have. > > No one is really unrepresented. No one is without district representation. > But there are differences in people's district represented, as measured by > their districts' s/p. > > Mike Ossipoff > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
