Problem with allocating fractional seats

[Róibeard Laira]

It has come to my attention that there is an inconsistency with how parties are allocated cosa seats when their allocation comes out to a fractional number. The procedure actually used in the last election doesn't seem to match the procedure proscribed by the constitution.

Article VIII, section 2 of the constituion reads, in part:

Each party shall receive a whole number of seats in the final tally. In the event of a single seat being divided among two or more parties mathematically, the party with the highest number of total votes will be used, and in case of a tie, percentile dice will be used to determine a single owner for the divided seat, with chances proportional to the percentage of the vote received.

The phrase, "the party with the highest number of total votes" seems to indicate that if one party wins 100.1 seats, and the other wins 99.9 seats, then seats should be divided 101-99 since the "total votes" are higher, i.e. 100.1 is higher than 99.9.

However, the procedure in our last election seems to be the greatest remainder method. Fractional seats were awarded to:

DPD (2.857)
KING (2.857)
VMR (2.857)
LRT (5.714)
GRUMP (8.571)

and were not awarded to:

CRO (11.429)
CCCP (14.286)
RUMP (114.286)
PP (37.143)

The deciding factor seems to be the parties with the highest fractional part received the extra seats.

The consittutional method would instead have given the extra seats to:

RUMP (114.286)
PP (37.143)
CCCP (14.286)
CRO (11.429)
GRUMP (8.571)

There is nothing wrong with the fractional remainder method, and in fact it is one of the favored methods of proponents of proportional representation elections. However, regardless of how we run our elections, what the constitution says we do should match what we do.

I'm not submitting this as a bill yet because I think we need some extensive discussion on what we want the procedure to be. This is already getting long so I'll post some of my suggestions in another message

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Don't forget the front and back of Section 2:

Based on the final vote tally, the Secretary of State shall calculate the apportionment of seats among the parties. Each party shall receive a percentage of the seats as equal as possible to its percentage of the popular vote.

My view was that in the 101.1 vs 99.9 , that ther first party gets 101, the send party gets 100 - that is "equal as possible to its percentage of the popular vote"


"The Secretary of State shall employ whatever mathematical formulae and calculations in the apportionment of seats, as will best reflect the intentions of this Act. The Uppermost Cort shall be the final judge in case of mathematical disputes. "


But, I don't disagree that the actual section is a bit confusing. You shoulda seen it before we amended it.

[Xhorxh Asmour]

I guess our math (and law) experts should take a good look at this.

[Róibeard Laira]

How should fractional seats be allocated?

The greatest remainder method is sensible, but I can see a reason to use the greatest total votes method. In the example I gave before where the seats are divided 100.1 to 99.9, the party with 100.1 actually has a majority and dividing the seats 101-99 will preserve that majority, while awarding the divided seat to the party with a remainder of 0.9 will create a 100-100 tie and eliminate the actual vote majority.

I like the idea of using percentile dice as it relates to our national pastime, but it's not usually just a single seat divided between two parties, and the procedure described in the constitution does not cover the more complex case of multiple seats divided among multiple political parties.

And I'd like to offer a new suggestion. Perhaps political parties that wished to do so could caucus together and combine their fractions to create a whole seat.

I welcome comments from the Ziu as to how we should resolve this problem.

[Róibeard Laira]

Oct 29, 2008 14:34:56 GMT -6 Capt. Sir Mick Preston said:

Each party shall receive a percentage of the seats as equal as possible to its percentage of the popular vote.

I guess that paragraph does seem to suggest rounding to the nearest whole number. I hadn't gotten that when I read it before. But if you just round off each fraction it doesn't guarantee that the total number of seats will come out to 200. If three parties each have a third of a seat they will all round down and the seat will dissappear.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

I imagine if we got to the point where 3 parties shared 1/3rd of a seat, after a bit of panic, I would get out my 20 sided die.

[Trotxâ]

Oct 29, 2008 20:08:52 GMT -6 Capt. Sir Mick Preston said:

I imagine if we got to the point where 3 parties shared 1/3rd of a seat, after a bit of panic, I would get out my 20 sided die.

Great - he's making each party roll a saving throw.

Next thing we know, we'll all be stuck in a Tommy Kawano Tee.

Sir T a.k.a. "Leonardo"

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Oct 29, 2008 14:11:09 GMT -6 Róibeard Laira said:

It has come to my attention that there is an inconsistency with how parties are allocated cosa seats when their allocation comes out to a fractional number.

I won't express an opinion on this in case it goes to Cort. But for anyone who is interested, here is the legislative history. The language of Article VIII, Section 2 was originally adopted as part of the EM200 Act, which re-established the 200-seat Cosa in 2003. It was originally Article VII, Section 2. Since then, the main change to Article VII has been eliminating the apportionment of Cosa seats among the provinces. Now we treat the whole nation as a single district. But the discussion of the EM200 Act is still on Witt X:

www.talossaonline.com/show.php?fid=1&id=1410 - original draft

www.talossaonline.com/show.php?fid=1&id=1548 - revised draft, taking into account comments from then-SoS Furxheir

www.talossaonline.com/1.1566.0.html - revised draft with further changes proposed by Furxheir

In any event, I think an amendment to make the section clearer would be a good idea.