Also this mail may not have much new content to others than Mike Ossipoff and me.
On 15.7.2012, at 2.30, Michael Ossipoff wrote: > 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. I don't want to say that. > 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. Yes, in the ideal case. Alternatively you could talk about the number of Hare quotas. > > > 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. SL tries to approximate the ideal s/q in one way. > It puts each party's s/q as close as > possible to the ideal equal value of s/q. Using one specific algorithm / measure to do that. Juho > > > 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
