I looked up the proposed automated districting systems whose URLs were
posted by Ted. They answered my question: I'd asked "Why haven't they been
implemented?"
Ted seemed to be implying that I naively believed that no one has ever
discussed automated districting. Actually, it was discussed on EM s
Juho & Jameson:
Jameson:
You describe a complicated new PR system. But why, when there are already
good PR systems?
Juho:
Actually, I can see the justification of d'Hondt in party list PR, and of
the Droop quota in STV: To someone who doesn't think PR is necessary anyway,
what's so bad about sl
2012/6/7 Juho Laatu
> On 7.6.2012, at 5.21, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
>
> Sainte-Lague isn't the only PR formula that is unbiased with respect to
> party-size, but it's the only unbiased formula that doesn't share the
> avoidable errors of STV and Largest Remainder.
>
>
> Largest Reminder has some
On 7.6.2012, at 21.44, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
> Likewise, for a list system, where Sainte-Lague is available, there's no
> reason to allow the paradoxes by using Largest Remainder.
Ok, that's one viewpoint. I think that often the paradoxican properties of
Largest Remainder are actually what we
> On 7.6.2012, at 5.21, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
>
>
> Sainte-Lague isn't the only PR formula that is unbiased with respect
to
> party-size, but it's the only unbiased formula that doesn't share
the
> avoidable errors of STV and Largest Remainder.
>
>
>
> Largest Reminder has
Bob:
Referring to my text, copied below, you wrote:
> This does not accomplish what PR accomplishes. In fact, it does the
opposite --
> over-represents the largest plurality at the expense of everybody else.
How can
> you think otherwise?
I don't. I quite agree. If it accomplished what PR accomp
I don't know if this has already been covered here, but do any of you have an
opinion on the changes to California's primary system? There is now a
so-called 'top-two' methodology being used. Where does this fit in with your
group's Declaration? Would anyone be interested in writing something
On 6/4/2012 10:18 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
[snip]
2. Whatever can be accomplished by PR can be accomplished by an at-large
single winner election, because every single winner method can output a
ranking of candidates instead of just one winner: Elect the winner. Then
delete the winner from t
On 7.6.2012, at 5.21, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
> Sainte-Lague isn't the only PR formula that is unbiased with respect to
> party-size, but it's the only unbiased formula that doesn't share the
> avoidable errors of STV and Largest Remainder.
Largest Reminder has some paradoxes but I wouldn't call
