User:RodCrosby/QPR2: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
m (→PR Squared examples: local explains better) |
(→PR Squared examples: moving up) |
||
| Line 244: | Line 244: | ||
|} |
|} |
||
If Party D is the smallest national party awarded seats, and the partywise smallest first allocation is adopted, and Party A's 0.65 remainder quota is also somewhere amongst ''its'' best remainders entitled to seats, then Party D will be awarded the seat despite having a slightly ''smaller'' remainder quota than Party A in Newtown East. |
If Party D is the smallest national party awarded seats, and the partywise smallest first allocation is adopted, and Party A's 0.65 remainder quota is also somewhere amongst ''its'' best remainders entitled to seats, then Party D will be awarded the seat despite having a slightly ''smaller'' remainder quota than Party A in Newtown East. The next best result of Party A's list of remainders would move up the list, replacing the unsuccessful candidate in Newtown East. |
||
Simulations indicate that whatever method is employed, including Buhagiar's preferred Priority Queue, such anomalies cannot be avoided entirely, and are just subjectively more or less "unfair" to the particular candidates affected. Simulations also suggest that only a handful of allocations would meet such clashes (probably fewer than 10 in a house of 650) and the candidates affected would tend to be among the weakest of the affected parties. |
Simulations indicate that whatever method is employed, including Buhagiar's preferred Priority Queue, such anomalies cannot be avoided entirely, and are just subjectively more or less "unfair" to the particular candidates affected. Simulations also suggest that only a handful of allocations would meet such clashes (probably fewer than 10 in a house of 650) and the candidates affected would tend to be among the weakest of the affected parties. |
||