On 2/11/2013 2:33 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Although what I'm going to say may be a bit offtopic, I think I should
say it. I think it could be useful to quantify exactly what is meant by
quoted-in proportionality in the sense that the Czech Green Party
desires it. Then one may make a "quota proportionality criterion" and
design methods from the ground up that pass it.
In my opinion, your comment is not off-topic.
Yes, I agree that it would be nice to more clearly define the goal.
Yet I've learned that reconsidering goals is a never-ending process
because, when a clearly defined goal is achieved, often it turns out
that a better goal becomes evident. (Especially if the intent behind
the original goal was not achieved, in spite of having achieved the
clearly stated goal.)
In this case I presume the gender-based quota requirement is a temporary
goal.
Hopefully, as more women get elected (because of using better ballots
and better counting methods), the need for it will disappear.
If it's easy to define the quota-based goal, such a definition would be
useful.
But, in my opinion, spending time developing an election method that
optimizes the clearly stated goal is not likely to provide a useful
return on investment (ROI) -- because it must be discarded when the
quota is no longer needed.
I think it makes more sense to use an election method that provides fair
results in many/most situations, and do some adjustments to accommodate
a temporary situation (such as gender bias), and then abandon those
adjustments when the results match the ultimate goal.
Presumably the ultimate goal is "gender equality" -- which itself is
probably worth defining clearly (although not here!).
Richard Fobes
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
