Dear Juho, considering your example 50: w1 > w2 > m1 > m2 50: w3 > w4 > m3 > m4
If we say, that a quoted-in candidate has the value and weight of 1/2 of a seat and if we lower the Hagenbach-Bischoff quota accordingly, so that only half of the number of votes are used, then we actually have a 4-seat election instead of a 5-seat election and thus it is appropriate that one coalition gets both women. That approach is interesting. Now how exactly to value a quoted-in candidate compared to a non-quoted in candidate? One way is to determine the largest Hagenbach-Bischoff quota which elects the last elected candidate, which was not quoted-in (call this quota Qmin) and then compare the value with the quoted-in candidate (Q). (Qmax-Q)/Qmax will be the value of the quoted-in candidate. Lacking a better formula to set the value of the quoted-in candidate a value of 1/2 or 2/3 of a seat for the quoted-in candidate could maybe be used. Maybe someone will propose a better formula to value the quoted-in candidate, which might (or might not) depend on the number of the seat being elected (i.e. it is worse to get seat no. 2 quoted-in, than seat no. 5). P. 2013/2/7 Peter Zbornik <[email protected]>: > 2013/2/7 Juho Laatu <[email protected]>: >> On 5.2.2013, at 19.50, Peter Zbornik wrote: >> >> 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 >> >> >> 50: w1 > w2 > m1 > m2 >> 50: w3 > w4 > m3 > m4 >> >> The first seat goes to w1 (lottery). The second seat goes to m3 (male >> representative needed). >> >> I read the rule above so that the third seat should go to w3 (not to w2). >> The rule talks about getting both quoted-in seats, but I guess the intention >> is that already the first quoted-in seat is considered to be a slight >> disadvantage that shall be balanced by ranking w3 third. Is this the correct >> way to read the rule? > > In a sense yes, but I haven't thought about the problem that way. > The question is how to quantify the "disadvantage", for instance if we > had the votes 55 w1 w2 m1 m2 and 45 w3 w4 m3 m4, should we still rank > w3 third, instead of w2? > >> >> The fourth seat goest to w2. >> >> 1) If we read the rule above literally so, that one grouping should not get >> both quoted-in seats, the fifth seat goes to m1. >> 2) If we read the rule so that the quoted-in seats are considered slightly >> less valuable than the normal seats, then the fifth seat goes to m4. > > That is an interesting point. I guess both interpretations are valid. > Personally, at first sight, I like the second interpretation. > I have to think about that a little. > >> >> Which one of the interpretations is the correct one? My understanding is now >> that there is no requirement concerning the balance of genders between the >> groupings, so allocating both male seats to the second grouping should be no >> problem. But is it a problem to allocate both quoted-in seats to it? >> >> Is the second proportional ordering ( < w1, m3, w3, w2, m4 > ) above more >> balanced / proportional in the light of the planned targets than the first >> one ( < w1, m3, w3, w2, m1 > )? >> >> (The algorithm could in principle also backtrack and reallocate the first >> seats to make it possible to allocate the last seats in a better way, but >> that doesn't seem to add anything useful in this example.) >> >> Juho >> >> >> >> >> ---- >> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info >> ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
