On 12.2.2013, at 1.24, Jameson Quinn wrote: > 2013/2/11 Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km_el...@lavabit.com>
> (Also, speaking of criteria: if I had enough time, I would try to find a > monotone variant of Schulze STV. I think one can make monotone > Droop-proportional multiwinner methods, since I made a Bucklin hack that > seemed to be both monotone and Droop-proportional. However, I have no > mathematical proof that the method obeys both criteria.) > > What does monotone even mean for PR? You can make something that's > sequentially monotone, but it's (I think) impossible to avoid situations > where AB were winning but changing C>A>B to A>B>C causes B to lose (or > variants of this kind of problem). That's still technically "monotone", but > from a voters perspective, it's not usefully so. I think monotonicity is sometimes an obvious requirement but not always. A ranked ordering (=> monotonicity with respect to adding seats) may give different results than a proportional algorithm that just picks the agreed number of representatives (with no order). Sometimes a ranked ordering is needed (like in the Czech Green Party canddidate list), sometimes not. The need to establish a ranked order may make the proportionality of the results slightly worse. I also like the Alabama paradox in the sense that one can as well consider such results the correct and exact outcome, not a "negative paradox". All in all, both appraches are needed, for different needs. Juho
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
