Juho: Let me put it this way:
You like the Hare quota, calculated based on the preferred house-size. Total votes divided by the preferred total number of seats. If you like the Hare quota, then would you object to putting each party's seats as close as possible to its number of Hare quotas? If you object to that, then please tell why. If you don't object to it: Remember that that Hare quota was based on a preferred (but ultimately not required) total number of seats for the parliament. Do you think that if we had "preferred" a different number of seats, that would somehow be less fair? ...that the resulting allocation would be less fair? If not, then you agree that the Hare quota isn't privileged as a divisor. So, if you liked putting the parties' seats as close as possible to their Hare quotas, the result of dividing their votes by the Hare quota, then how could you not like, just as much, putting the parties' seats as close as possible to the result of dividing their seats by some other divisor? (We could call that other divisor the Hare quota, based on some different preferred (but not required) house-size) Mike Ossipoff . ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
