User:RodCrosby/QPR2: Difference between revisions
→Possible anomalies: Buhagiar
m (→National thresholds?: comma) |
(→Possible anomalies: Buhagiar) |
||
Line 190:
== Possible anomalies ==
In 1994-5, Professor Anton Buhagiar suggested improvements to Malta's STV system to increase proportionality and eliminate "wrong-winner" elections. After considering various methods of first assigning seats to multi-member constituencies so that strict national proportionality was maintained, he leaned towards the use of a "Priority Queue". This is a rather convoluted method, and Buhagiar conceded that anomalies will arise whichever method is chosen.<ref>{{cite web |first=Anton |last=Buhagiar |title=THE PRIORITY QUEUE: A FAIR METHOD FOR THE ASSIGNMENT OF SEATS TO DISTRICTS.|url=https://www.um.edu.mt/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/207788/buhag2.pdf|date=June 8, 1995}}</ref>
Buhagiar describes the anomaly as follows:
''"The proposed order for the party scans in the partywise distribution was that determined by the size of the nationwide first count vote, as mentioned in iv) above. The largest party has all its seats assigned first to the districts, then the next largest, and so on, until finally one assigns the seats of the smallest party. By the time one reaches the scan for the smallest party, most of the district seats will have been already filled, with the result, say, that such a party will be awarded its seat in a district where it does not the have highest number or the highest district percentage of votes.
The problem is that in the partywise distribution, where seats are distributed by party, all the seats of a given party will have a higher priority over the choice of district than any seat of a smaller party. It could therefore happen that a seat which was marginal for the larger party could be assigned to a district, which should have been assigned to a less marginal seat of a smaller party.
Conceivably one can alter the order, specified in iv) and vi) above, in which the parties are scanned for the partywise distribution of seats. If for example one were to start with the smallest party first, and end up with the largest, the partywise seat distribution in the districts might turn out to be unfair on some candidates of the larger parties. The problem is that whatever the order of the party scans, priority in the partywise distribution is determined by party size only, without any other consideration whatsoever."''
===PR Squared examples===
===Justifications===
==Possible additional features==
| |||