I think you are making the question quite complex and quite detailed. I also don't know if this is a reply to something specific that I said or just general observations on what kind of systems I might like.
One basic approach that I find quite decent is the idea that if one wants to have accurate proportional representation, then n% of the votes should lead to approximately n% of the seats. That in a way says something about the roots of the idea of proportional representation. Is this a helpful definition of my rough approach or should I say something more? Juho On 13.7.2012, at 2.50, Michael Ossipoff wrote: > 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 ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
