After writing the post on improving the Sainte-Laguë index, I started wondering about what the PR problem would look like, phrased geometrically. And I think I found one. It's a bit different from what Warren proposed years ago, but it has the advantage that the problem for party list PR and for individual PR is very similar.

Let's take the individual PR problem first:

We're given a set c of C candidate points and a set v of N voter points. We're also given a number S (number of seats) so that N mod S = 0. The output is a subset e of c, so that there are S points in e.

Define a link between a point in c and a point in v as a graph edge with weight equal to the distance (in some geometric space) between the points.

Define a mapping between e and v to be a graph where each member in v has a link to some member in e, and each member in e has the same degree (number of links).

Define a minimum mapping between e and v (for a given subset e) to be a graph where the links between v and e are set to minimize the sum of distances.

Define the minimum mapping sum between e and v to be the sum of distances for the minimum mapping between e and v.

Then we wish to find an e so that the minimum mapping sum between e and v is minimized. (Side note: this is very similar to Monroe's method.)

---

For party list PR, the problem is very similar, except that we're permitted to "clone" any point in c. The output is no longer a proper set, but can contain one or more copies of each point.

---

The intuition here is of having a city redistribution program. Each city can take the same number of people, and we want to find a number of cities so that, when we allocate each person to one of the cities, the sum of the distances they have to travel is minimized. More generally, each group of voters is of the same proportion (that's the "proportional" part) and each group of voters is represented most accurately by minimizing distance (that's the "representation" part).

When you turn this into a single-winner method, you get the problem of finding a city so that, if you relocate everybody there, they have to move the least distance. This would, in a Yee diagram, resolve to the Voronoi result of an optimal method.

So how does this relate to Yee diagrams in general? Well, I once tried to make Yee diagrams for multiwinner methods. These seemed to exhibit some pattern, being similar to Voronoi maps when the voters were concentrated around a single point, but giving more space to centrists when the standard deviation is increased. But I didn't know what I was looking for. The individual-candidate PR methods were either not proportional or not monotone.

But with the reduction above, I *do* know what to look for. And since in a Yee diagram, all distances are known, I can then make optimal Yee diagrams for the multiwinner case and find out what they look like. All I have to make sure of is that N mod S = 0 since I don't know how to generalize it if not. (Perhaps one could consider each voter to be a real thing and so infinitely subdividable.)

Another interesting part is that when every voter is also a candidate, this reduces to Warren's clustering problem. With optimal clustering, each cluster would have as many voters attached to it as every other cluster.

---

Finally, this suggests a Monroe-type algorithm for rated party list PR. Instead of minimizing distances, maximize scores. Because each party can be cloned, we would only need to check every combination of parties. The only thing left would be to ensure it would reduce to Sainte-Laguë when everybody max-rates a single party and min-rates the others...

To generalize to rankings would be harder. One might use the Kendall-tau distance, but I don't know how good that would be at optimizing the hidden distances behind the rankings (assuming each citizen ranks closest cities first). It would also have the problem that I encountered while making CFC-Kemeny -- that you'd need a ranking, not just a single candidate or set, per cluster.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Reply via email to