User:RodCrosby/QPR2: Difference between revisions
m
→PR Squared examples: weaker
(→Three or four member constituencies?: or just used a fixed quota) |
m (→PR Squared examples: weaker) |
||
Line 246:
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 that list, replacing the position of 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
Such rare blemishes could be argued to be far outweighed by the list of overall major improvements offered by PR^2 compared to FPTP.
| |||