Excuse the extra text that might come with this. I'm having to resend it. My
message follows below,
_________________________________________________________________
Get free, personalized commercial-free online radio with MSN Radio powered
by Pandora http://radio.msn.com/?icid=T002MSN03A07001
--- Begin Message ---
Received: from hotmail.com ([65.54.229.45]) by bay0-omc2-s9.bay0.hotmail.com
with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2668);
Fri, 8 Dec 2006 19:44:21 -0800
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
Fri, 8 Dec 2006 19:44:21 -0800
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from 65.54.229.220 by by110fd.bay110.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;
Sat, 09 Dec 2006 03:44:18 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [12.184.65.24]
X-Originating-Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: "MIKE OSSIPOFF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bcc:
Subject: Re: Hamilton vs Webster (Sainte-Lague)
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 03:44:18 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Dec 2006 03:44:21.0587 (UTC)
FILETIME=[4FEAEA30:01C71B44]
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Juho--
You spoke of Webster/Sainte-Lague having a rounding error, with the
implication that Largest-Remainder/Hamilton doesn't have one. But rounding
is quite unavoidable, since fractional seats can't be given (or at least are
against the rules).
So rounding does _not_ count as a SL disadvantage in comparison to LR. SL's
rounding. As I described earlier today, rounding makes SL a S(p) function
that is as close as possible to a linear function. That's the definition of
proportionality.
LR isn't a function, due to its caprice.
To answer an earlier question: LR _does_ have an additional problem, in
addition to its nonmonotonicity: Its unnecessary random deviations from
proportionality.
But LR is unbiased, and so I'd rather have it than Jefferson/d'Hondt. Some
advocate d'Hondt on majority rule grounds: A party with a majority of the
votes can't fail to win a majority of the seats. But that comes at the cost
of bias in favor of large parties. And that brings back the old
Lesser-of-2-evils problem: "If you vote Progresssive, then the Progressives
and the Democrats will get fewer votes than the Democrats would get if all
the Progressives voted Democrat, because d'Hondt favors large parties. So
you've got to anandon your idealism and pragmatically vote for the
Democrats."
That sounds too familiar. I don't want an electoral reform that will retain
that problem.
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
Get the latest Windows Live Messenger 8.1 Beta version. Join now.
http://ideas.live.com
--- End Message ---
----
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
