User:RodCrosby/QPR2: Difference between revisions
→PR Squared examples: number of actual quota "Inversions" is small.
m (→Why ranked ballots?: minority) |
(→PR Squared examples: number of actual quota "Inversions" is small.) |
||
Line 266:
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 conflicts (usually fewer than 20 in a house of 650, or about 3% of the seats). Of these 3%, many, if not most, of the largest remainders would belong to the smaller parties in any case. The number of actual remainder quota "inversions" might be counted on the fingers of one hand.
An alternative resolution of these approximately 20 seat conflicts would be to follow that method recommended for the Dual Member Proportional System. In this case, simply award the seat to the party with the largest remainder quota, and the party denied the seat would utilise its next best reminder quota for its next viable allocation.. Under this method the partywise order of allocation is not relevant.
| |||