On 19/10/2023 12:50, Richard Lung wrote: > > > Representative efficiency > > A nine-member constituency with a transferable vote, like Cambridge. > will have at least 90% efficient democratic representation of the > population, including its ethnic diversity and gender balance. > (Compare simple plurality with thirty odd or forty odd percent > efficiency on only a minimum of -- largely undesired -- choice.) > > But there are more marginal considerations. For instance the Hare > quota for maximum proportional representation is too high a threshold, > requiring some deference from voters, in smaller constituencies, to be > met. And the Droop quota giving a minimum PR is too low a threshold, > making possible chance victories. > > A more representative PR than these two extremes avoids either > disadvantage. This is provided by their average, which is the harmonic > mean. Hence I introduced the Harmonic Mean quota, votes/(seats + ½). > > The HM quota is equivalent to the Saint Lague divisor method (or > Webster apportionment) reported by Carstairs to be regarded as the > most equitable share-out. > > The HM quota brings the most equitable share-out to voters lists (STV) > as distinct from party lists. Party lists are a denial of human rights > by disregarding individual representation. Party lists, which use an > illiterate non-transferable vote, can only express division. Whereas > the transferable vote can express a democratic choice of coalition or > union, which needn’t be merely partisan. > > I heard from a partisan of party lists that STV is only used in a tiny > number of countries. Evidently genuinely democratic elections with > transferable voting will require overcoming a formidable herd instinct > that has a hold of humanity. > > It is possible that other averages than the HM quota may be used to > increase representative efficiency. And indeed I use four, in the > advanced version of my Binomial STV system. > >  Regards, > > Richard Lung. >