For nearly all of my time on this list, I've said that I specialize in
single-winner methods, and I refused to discuss PR. Well, I definitely
should stick to that policy!
I felt safe repeating what I said 18 years ago, when I was into PR, but it
turns out that I seem to have made a few mis-sta
MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
>The very first use of the Presidential Veto was when George Washington
>vetoed a bill to apportion the house by LR/Hamilton. We used
>d'Hondt/Jefferson for a while. There was later another bill to enact
>LR/Hamilton. It passed and wasn't vetored, and LR/Hamilton was used
Jobst and All,
So far I don't have any takers on this topic, but I am going to forge ahead a
little, and then do some examples that show how well it works at providing
fairness in some sticky cases that have been discussed from time to time on
this list.
In order to compare with most of the
Dear Election List,
See some in-line comments.
Regards,
Joe
On Dec 7, 2006, at 5:40 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
I hadn't heard about the other methods being justified in terms of
transfers
between states after the allocation.
You can find the description in Balinski and Young's book F
IIAC:
Deleting a nonwinning candidate from the ballots, and then recounting those
ballots should never change who wins.
(end of IIAC definition|
RV and Approval pass IIAC.
The above IIAC definition is the only complete and precise one that I've
seen. Yes, lots of people invoke an IIAC that i
I hadn't heard about the other methods being justified in terms of transfers
between states after the allocation. But, as for different standards for
judging the result of those transfers, by different standards of
proportional fairness, there doesn't seem to be much room for rival
standards
Dear Election Methods,
For the apportionment methods for the US House of Representatives
there are 5 interesting methods, which go under various names
(including e.g. Jefferson, Huntington-Hill, Webster, Dean and Adams)
which optimize results with respect to the transfer of a seat between
