On 2.7.2012, at 8.16, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
That's _big_ bias in favor of large parties, and against small parties.
Maybe so, if you count the s/v values for D'Hondt. If you count the seats, the
bias will be less than one seat per party. That's maybe not a _big_ bias.
(Sainte-Laguë is
On 2.7.2012, at 8.45, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
You asked:
, or would the candidate maybe indicate his favourite party separately?
Sorry, I had a typo here. I should have written would the voter maybe
indicate. No need to answer again since I think this was already covered below.
But if
Another possibility is alternative-vote based PR.
You rank up to 2 parties. Something like,
Use divisors 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, ...
This is Websters but is d'Hondt-like for the first seat.
The seats would be allocated using that rule, and any party which got no
seats would be eliminated and the votes
Good Morning, Juho
re: To me the question of sponsorship is therefore simply a
question of how much the elections should be 'one man one
vote' and how much 'one dollar one vote'.
Since we are Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process, our focus here
is on one person, one vote.
re:
On 2.7.2012, at 16.08, Fred Gohlke wrote:
re: At least in theory we could have a political system that
runs on goverment budget money only.
That can't happen because the donation of private money to support political
action has been deemed an expression of free speech.
It is possible
On 2.7.2012, at 13.58, Raph Frank wrote:
Another possibility is alternative-vote based PR.
You rank up to 2 parties. Something like,
Use divisors 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, ...
This is Websters but is d'Hondt-like for the first seat.
The seats would be allocated using that rule, and any party
Hi, Michael
re: ... given the assumption of equality, the party leader is
formally on a level with any party member. Each has a
single vote at each step of the primary, including
nomination.
Absolutely!
This leads to the obvious question of How?, but asking it may be
Fred and Juho,
Fred Gohlke said:
re: ... given the assumption of equality, the party leader is
formally on a level with any party member. Each has a
single vote at each step of the primary, including
nomination.
Absolutely!
This leads to the obvious question of How?,
Here is what I mean by bias. I claim that my meaning for bias is
consistent with the usual understood meaning for bias::
For any two consecutive integers N and N+1, the interval between those two
integers is Interval N
If it is equally likely to find a party with its final quotient anywhere in
Warren Smith and I have discussed methods with less bias than
Sainte-Lague/Webster. We discussed in for apportionment of congressional
seats to states, so I'll discuss in in those terms.
Warren suggested Random-Rounding, in which, when a state's number of Hare
quotas is rounded up with a
Because S doesn't vary linearly in that interval, a+1/2 isn't the expected
population for a state somewhere in that interval.
If I didn't have things that need to be done right now, I'd write that
expected population correctly in this posting. As it is, though, I have
things to do, and
must log
11 matches
Mail list logo
