On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Juho Laatu <juho4...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 3.7.2012, at 14.44, Michael Ossipoff wrote: > > > > No, but it's an unquestionable fact. For two intervals between consecutive > integers, n to n+1, and N to N+1, the bigger N is, in comparison to n, the > greater is the factor by which the N interval party's expected s/v is > greater than the n party's expected s/v. > > AT large, or in large districts, N can be greater than n by a greater > amount, meaning that d'Hondt's bias is greater. That gives more seats to a > large party. > > > It seems that you are talking about one district whose population varies, > while I talk about a country (with constant population) where the number of > districts (with district based D'Hondt allocation) varies. > [endquote] No. I'm talking about what you're talking about: Dividing a country into large districts (or one big at-large "district"), rather than into small districts. With d'Hondt, a large party gains more s/v expectation (where the party is equally likely to be anywhere in its n to N+1 interval) in comparison to that of a small party, when the country is divided into larger districts or at-large, instead of smaller districts. You said: Do you agree that in the latter case the best strategy of the largest parties is to have small districts? [endquote] Certainly not. Mike Ossipoff > Juho > > > > > > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info > >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info