On 7.6.2012, at 5.21, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
Sainte-Lague isn't the only PR formula that is unbiased with respect to
party-size, but it's the only unbiased formula that doesn't share the
avoidable errors of STV and Largest Remainder.
Largest Reminder has some paradoxes but I wouldn't call
On 6/4/2012 10:18 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
[snip]
2. Whatever can be accomplished by PR can be accomplished by an at-large
single winner election, because every single winner method can output a
ranking of candidates instead of just one winner: Elect the winner. Then
delete the winner from
I don't know if this has already been covered here, but do any of you have an
opinion on the changes to California's primary system? There is now a
so-called 'top-two' methodology being used. Where does this fit in with your
group's Declaration? Would anyone be interested in writing
Bob:
Referring to my text, copied below, you wrote:
This does not accomplish what PR accomplishes. In fact, it does the
opposite --
over-represents the largest plurality at the expense of everybody else.
How can
you think otherwise?
I don't. I quite agree. If it accomplished what PR
2012/6/7 Juho Laatu juho4...@yahoo.co.uk
On 7.6.2012, at 5.21, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
Sainte-Lague isn't the only PR formula that is unbiased with respect to
party-size, but it's the only unbiased formula that doesn't share the
avoidable errors of STV and Largest Remainder.
Largest
Juho Jameson:
Jameson:
You describe a complicated new PR system. But why, when there are already
good PR systems?
Juho:
Actually, I can see the justification of d'Hondt in party list PR, and of
the Droop quota in STV: To someone who doesn't think PR is necessary anyway,
what's so bad about
I looked up the proposed automated districting systems whose URLs were
posted by Ted. They answered my question: I'd asked Why haven't they been
implemented?
Ted seemed to be implying that I naively believed that no one has ever
discussed automated districting. Actually, it was discussed on EM
