Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

phdoofus t1_j6kho09 wrote

You need to rethink your presentation of this. I'm sure it's interesting but the presentation sucks. No axes labels, no obvious assumptions up. Really, I should be able to look at this and discern what's going on and what the important conclusions are without going to the comments to see if there's a bunch of explanation. If I have to read a paper to understand this, it's should be posted in r/researchpapersarebeautiful

13

Sorenroy t1_j6kfuws wrote

I'd love to engage with the data here, but I'm not sure what the X or Y axes represent given they're missing their labels. I'm assuming that the Y axis is percentage of the vote, but X is more confusing. Is the X axis meant to represent the number of seats won assuming there are 20 seats available?

6

Glif13 OP t1_j6hu3f0 wrote

Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare_quota

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droop_quota

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_voting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-round_system

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Hondt_method

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_non-transferable_vote

2

Glif13 OP t1_j6hvdyw wrote

Since the required share of votes depends on the number of contesters per seat I arbitrarily choose it to be 5 contester/seat.

Multi-member districts (for green and blue systems) are of a magnitude of 5 and 'Uneven" means they have a different number of voters in a ratio 1:2:3... 19:20 or 1:2:3:4 for multi-member districts.

Also, since the Two-round system and Alternative vote allow 2nd and even 2nd last preferred candidate to win the graph shows an average preference, rather than sheer share of vote.

0

worm_on_acropolis t1_j6kxoq9 wrote

Love the concept but it’s very hard to interpret.

2