Talk:Schulze STV: Difference between revisions

 

::: That's a good example, since it shows Schulze STV agreeing with D'Hondt, but not Webster or LR-Droop. So, the results in each method for that example: D'Hondt gives 15 seats to D, Webster 12, and LR-Droop 14. All three of them spread the remaining of 18 seats equally to 3 other parties, resulting in a tie in LR-Droop. I think WLOG suppose Party A gets the extra seat from the tie in LR-Droop. Now, for the D'Hondt vs. LR-Droop matchup, it's a difference of exactly one (give D one more seat or A one more seat), so there's a direct comparison; with the D'Hondt>LR-Droop part first, we see 105 voters splitting among 15 candidates, so the minimum held by anyone is 7 votes. With the LR-Droop>D'Hondt part, we see 13 voters splitting among 2 candidates, so the minimum held by anyone is 6.5 votes. So D'Hondt wins the matchup. In general, I think we can see that when you propose giving a party less than its D'Hondt share, it can always divide more votes among its candidates than can its competitors; in fact, this seems to be exactly what it is designed for. Now, regarding D'Hondt>Webster, we need to construct the beatpath. We already saw that 15 seats for D beats 14 seats, so it's obvious that 14 beats 13 beats 12, since that would require every smaller party to get 2 seats. Since they're all 13 votes large, they can do at best 13/2=6.5, while Party D can do 105/15=7 and thus when you propose it gets only, say, 13 seats, it can do 105/13=8.07 votes, etc. So, I think I've given you a strong intuition for why Schulze STV decays into D'Hondt: D'Hondt itself is modeled off of the HB quota in its formula, and the HB quota was invented because it allows larger groups of voters overwhelm smaller groups, similar to [[vote management]]. [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 16:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)