The Droop quota is often presumed for proportional representation over the Hare quota that is more proportional, due to how the Hare quota can result in a minority being in power. (I guess the majority get in power only a majority of the time with a Hare Quota. ) And since the amount of proportionality with a droop quota gets watered down as the number of contested seats is reduced, this has led some activists/experts, like Douglas Amy, to insist that PR use at least 5 seats. This is often coupled with an insistence on rank choice voting due to the problems with party lists.
So I'd like to simulate the effects of using 3-seat LR Hare for a 13 seat city council election, like in MInneapolis, MN. We'd consider 7 cases: 1. 13 FPTP elections. 2. 13 IRV elections, as are used now. 3. Four 3-seat LR Hare elections with 1 at-large seat with IRV. 4. A 6 and a 7 seat with Droop quota election. 5. A 6 and a 7 seat with Hare quota election. 6. A 13 seat with Droop quota election. 7. A 13 seat with Hare quota election. I'd like to measure relative proportionality and the probability of a majority getting a ruling majority, the portion of close/competitive elections, and maybe some other stuff that cd be of interest. Anybody interested? My intuition is that smaller-order PRs retain the constituent-legislator relationship and would be preferred by many who like having their council-person. I also think that the Hare quota is more important for increasing the likelihood of having a competitive election and giving minority groups a higher chance of being swing voters. If this is paired with the use of an at-large seat or some other way of establishing a hierarchy who can get things done, it might be a winning combination. dlw On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 2:02 PM, < [email protected]> wrote: > Send Election-Methods mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Election-Methods digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. My cycle definition of the Schwartz set was incorrect > (Michael Ossipoff) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 16:18:25 -0400 > From: Michael Ossipoff <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: [EM] My cycle definition of the Schwartz set was incorrect > Message-ID: > <CAOKDY5Dv9vjoYwO=tXpgfjh= > [email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > I wanted to express the beatpath definition of the Schwartz set in a > simpler and more compelling or appealing way, and the cycle definition > (that I've posted here) seemed such a simplification. > > But the cycle definition doesn't define the Schwartz set. A candidate > that doesn't have a defeat that isn't in a cycle isn't necessarily in > the Scwhartz set (as defined by the unbeaten set definition and the > beatpath definition]. > > Of the two definitions (unbeaten set and beatpath), the beatpath > definition desn't have much compellingness. For compellingness, I much > prefer the unbeaten set definition. > > Let me state both definitions here: > > Unbeaten set definition of the Schwartz set:: > > 1. An unbeaten sets is a set of alternatives none of which are beaten > by anything outside the set. > > 2. An innermost unbeaten set is an unbeaten set that doesn't contain a > smaller unbeaten set. > > 3.The Schwartz set is the set of alternatives that are in innermost > unbeaten sets. > > [end of unbeaten set definition of Schwartz set] > > --------------------------------------- > > Beatpath definition of Schwartz set: > > There is a beatpath from X to Y if X beats Y, or if X beats A and > there is a beatpath from A to Y. > > If there is a beatpath from Y to X, but not from X to Y, then X is not > in the Schwartz set. > > Otherwise X is in the Schwartz set. > > [end of beatpath definition of the Schwartz set] > > Michael Ossipoff > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Election-Methods mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com > > > End of Election-Methods Digest, Vol 107, Issue 9 > ************************************************ >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
