On 18.7.2013, at 23.36, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote: > (And now that I think about it: if it's desired, it should be possible to > make n-proportional apportionment methods for n>2 -- e.g. a method that tries > to balance regional representation, national representation, and > representation of minorities according to their share of the population. The > greater n is, though, the less intuitive the results will be.)
I think any number of such (voted or static) "proportionalities" could be used. To me the biggest problem is that the "rounding errors" will increase, and as a result we will get also some strange results. That means some "less intuitive" results as you say, but maybe also more intuitive/fair in the sense that all groups will be fairly represented. With "voted" and "static" proportionalities I refer to e.g. percentage of votes to women vs. percentage of women in the society. In real life having political and regional proportionality may be enough for most countries, but I can see that in countries where the balance betheen different groups of the society is critical, also other proportionalities can be useful. This would allow e.g. different ethnic groups to work within one (ideological) party instead of being split in separate ethnic parties. Juho ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
