On 5 Feb 2013, at 10:23 AM, Peter Zbornik <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Say the "default" proportional ranking method elects women to all five >>> seats, and thus that we need to modify it in a good way in order to >>> satisfy the constraints. >>> >>> Now the question is: How should the quoted seats be distributed in >>> order to insure >>> i] that the seats are quoted-in fairly proportionally between the >>> voters (i.e. the same voters do not get both quoted-in seats) and at >>> the same time >>> ii] that the proportional ranking method remains fairly proportional? >> >> Define "fairly proportional", please. > > If "fairly proportional" will be defined, then I my question will be > easy to answer. > The definition of "fairly proportional" is at the core of my question. > I think there is a trade-off between "ranking proportionality" and > "quota proportionality", > i.e. you cannnot in all cases maximalize the proprtionality of both > the ranking and the distribution of the quoted seats at the same time. > > To quote my previous email: > I.e. we search for > a) a quota proportionality measure and > b) a proportional ranking measure and > c) a rule, which "optimises" both the "quota proportionality" and the > "proportional ranking proportionality". > > The optimization in c) above, is what I mean by "fairly proportional".
There is, I think, an underlying misconception here, namely that STV order of election can be interpreted as a ranking of level of support. It's not, in the general case. ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
