Hi Kristofer, to be even more exact and correct: I need not just proportionality in the ordered list as a whole (i.e. meaning proportional ranking), but also that seats/candidates are quoted in proportionally, i.e. that the quoted-in candidates are proportionally distributed.
That should be the most exact framing of the problem (I hope). P. 2013/2/6 Peter Zbornik <[email protected]>: > Kristofer, > > to be more exact: > I need not just proportionality in the ordered list as a whole (i.e. > meaning proportional ranking), but also that seats/candidates are > quoted in proportionally within each gender too. > > Proportionality within each gender is not needed, if the constraints are met. > > I.e., the guiding principle when constraints are not met and when > deciding upon which seat to apply quotas on should be > i. to quote-in the seat proportionally within the gender, but > ii. without causing an unnecessary "disproportionality" within the > ordered list. > > This means for instance, that if we have to decide if we should apply > the constraint (quote-in) at seat 3, 4 or 5 > and the proportionality within the gender would be identical in each case, > then the candidate should be quoted-in at seat 5, since seat 5 is > "less important" than seats 3 and 4 and since there is no gain in > proportionality within the gender by quoting in at seat 3 or 4 > compared to quoting-in at seat 5. > > It is necessary to quantify what "less important" above exactly means, > but I am not sure of how to do it. > > P. > > 2013/2/6 Peter Zbornik <[email protected]>: >> yes, that's it. >> >> P. >> >> 2013/2/6 Kristofer Munsterhjelm <[email protected]>: >>> On 02/05/2013 09:37 PM, Peter Zbornik wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Kristofer, >>>> >>>> I am afraid your approach might in some cases not lead to >>>> proportionally distributed quoted-in candidates. >>>> >>>> For instance, say we have three coalitions: A, B, C. >>>> Coalition A and B get their first place candidate >>>> Coalition C get their second place candidate quoted-in (i.e. they >>>> would prefer Agda, but they get Adam due to the quota rules). >>>> Coalition A and B get the third and fourth place candidates respectively. >>>> Coalition C, again, get their fifth place candidate quoted in (i.e. >>>> they would prefer Erica, but they get Eric due to the quota rules). >>>> >>>> This approach leads to an unproportional distribution of quoted-in >>>> seats (candidates) as Coalition C get both of the quoted-in candidates >>>> and Coalition A and B get none. >>> >>> >>> So you need not just proportionality in the group as a whole, but >>> proportionality within each gender too? >>> ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
