On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 3:39 AM, Juho Laatu <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think you are making the question quite complex and quite detailed. Speaking detailedly and specifically is necessary. You're saying that you want to ignore details. That won't do. You said: 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. [endquote] It's both. It's based on what you said about what your goal is. You said: > > 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. [endquote] I showed in my previous post that, if you want n% of the votes to get n% of the seats, that an only be achieved by making the parties' s/q equal. You said: That in a way says something about the roots of the idea of proportional representation. [endquote] Yes. You asked: Is this a helpful definition of my rough approach or should I say something more? [endquote] Yes, that's a sufficient definition of your approach. No, you've fully specified it and no more description is needed. And your goal is another way of saying that you want the s/q to be equal. That's what SL does. It puts each party's s/q as close as possible to the ideal equal value of s/q. Below is where Juho quoted one of my arguments. Mike Ossipoff > > 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 ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
