J***@sanasepot.fi

2018-04-08 11:33:31 UTC

Greetings!

If you want, I can introduce myself and my reasons to be here. But now

to the point.

You surely know the quota rule in PR voting: if a party gets

theoretically 7.362 seats, then it should actually get 7 or 8 seats,

nothing else.

If we stick to this rule, it brings about a binary choice: either lower

or upper value. In the extremely rare case that a party really gets an

integer amount of seats, it of course gets exactly that.

This choice makes lots of things easier. I already introduced one

concept at

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2714982/enforcing-quota-in-any-proportional-voting-system-frunction-box#_=_

The idea is roughly that you convert your chosen method (that usually

means a divisor one) into pseudo-Hamilton method. I'm aware that this

retains some of the paradoxes, because it's unavoidable. But at least we

have curbed the quota violations, and in most cases the problems with

Hamilton for free. Meaning that if there were no quota violations in the

pure method in this election, then we have in effect used the pure

method.

---

The second idea is a benchmark for PR voting systems. If you happened to

have some party with the integer amount of seats, then the problem could

be reduced: you take away the party and its seats, and recalculate. I

call this system requota: it takes away the party closest to an integer

and iterates that until all the seats are determined. This is not meant

to be an actual voting method. For example, if there were two parties

close to half a seat, then the bigger of them would get the seat.

Theoretically that makes sense, but fairness demands that either they

are both included or both excluded.

However, the same general idea can be used as a metavoting: choose three

methods, for example Jefferson, Webster and Hamilton. Determine the

seats with all of them. If they all agree on some parties, those party

seats are considered canon and removed from the next round. This is

iterated until either all the seats were removed or all of the rest are

in dispute. In case of dispute, we take the majority choice (two methods

agree).

---

The requota system would need more explaining. Is Electowiki still in

regular use, and do you think I should get an account and add this stuff

there?

----

Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

If you want, I can introduce myself and my reasons to be here. But now

to the point.

You surely know the quota rule in PR voting: if a party gets

theoretically 7.362 seats, then it should actually get 7 or 8 seats,

nothing else.

If we stick to this rule, it brings about a binary choice: either lower

or upper value. In the extremely rare case that a party really gets an

integer amount of seats, it of course gets exactly that.

This choice makes lots of things easier. I already introduced one

concept at

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2714982/enforcing-quota-in-any-proportional-voting-system-frunction-box#_=_

The idea is roughly that you convert your chosen method (that usually

means a divisor one) into pseudo-Hamilton method. I'm aware that this

retains some of the paradoxes, because it's unavoidable. But at least we

have curbed the quota violations, and in most cases the problems with

Hamilton for free. Meaning that if there were no quota violations in the

pure method in this election, then we have in effect used the pure

method.

---

The second idea is a benchmark for PR voting systems. If you happened to

have some party with the integer amount of seats, then the problem could

be reduced: you take away the party and its seats, and recalculate. I

call this system requota: it takes away the party closest to an integer

and iterates that until all the seats are determined. This is not meant

to be an actual voting method. For example, if there were two parties

close to half a seat, then the bigger of them would get the seat.

Theoretically that makes sense, but fairness demands that either they

are both included or both excluded.

However, the same general idea can be used as a metavoting: choose three

methods, for example Jefferson, Webster and Hamilton. Determine the

seats with all of them. If they all agree on some parties, those party

seats are considered canon and removed from the next round. This is

iterated until either all the seats were removed or all of the rest are

in dispute. In case of dispute, we take the majority choice (two methods

agree).

---

The requota system would need more explaining. Is Electowiki still in

regular use, and do you think I should get an account and add this stuff

there?

----

Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info