[Lnc-business] Delegate Allocations

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Thank you, I will take all that into consideration and be sure to document
all the decisions made so that any future users will understand.

*In Liberty,*

* Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome
(part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If anyone
found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux
pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *



On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 6:15 PM Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

> <CAH> Ms. Mattson, I have a question - are you suggesting that I use the
> ROUND instead of the ROUNDUP equation always in calculating the percentage
> of total BSM?</CAH>
>
> Yes.  Using ROUNDUP() will give you totals which more significantly exceed
> 100%, and the point of percentages is for them to total only 100%.
>
> <CAH> I do have a checksum ran using a different formula to cross reference
> the number of delegates earned per BSM two different ways to be sure they
> zero out, and if one didn't - that would lead to an investigation that
> would find if there were ever that rare rounding anomaly.</CAH>
>
> The way the delegate allocations are calculated in column D does not
> involve rounding errors because Excel keeps many, many decimal places on
> the interim steps, and then only applies the "or fractions thereof" rule at
> the end with the ROUNDUP() function.  I didn't understand the point of the
> "Checksum BSM" column, as all it does is determine if the calculation had
> instead been done with a way that does introduce rounding errors at the 3rd
> decimal, would it have made a difference...but that's not how you
> calculated it, and if the other method did have a different result, the
> second calculation would be the wrong one, and the column D would be the
> correct one.  I also didn't understand the point of the "Checksum Final"
> column, as it repeats exactly the same mathematical operations as you did
> in columns D, G and H, so the only test is whether Excel will do the the
> same math the same way both times, and yes, it will, so I don't foresee any
> circumstances in which that column would ever be anything but a zero.
>
> <CAH> I was concerned about the arbitrary choice of decimal places which is
> what prompted me to use the different formulas as checksums.</CAH>
>
> I wouldn't say the choice of 3 decimal places is arbitrary.  It is one
> decimal place further than the 0.14 and 0.35 denominators prescribed by the
> bylaws.  And with the typical size of our regions, the cumulative effect of
> the rounding will likely be confined to the third decimal place and not
> roll into the second decimal place where the 2-decimal-place denominators
> are doing their business.  If it seemed likely that there would be one
> super-region with all 51 affiliates, I might add another decimal place to
> the calculation.
>
> -Alicia
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 6:02 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Ms. Mattson, I have a question - are you suggesting that I use the ROUND
> > instead of the ROUNDUP equation always in calculating the percentage of
> > total BSM?  I do have a checksum ran using a different formula to cross
> > reference the number of delegates earned per BSM two different ways to be
> > sure they zero out, and if one didn't - that would lead to an
> investigation
> > that would find if there were ever that rare rounding anomaly. Or perhaps
> > calculating out to five decimal places to make the rare even rarer?  I
> was
> > concerned about the arbitrary choice of decimal places which is what
> > prompted me to use the different formulas as checksums.
> >
> > *In Liberty,*
> >
> > * Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome
> > (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
> > communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If anyone
> > found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux
> > pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 6:48 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Thank you, I will take a look at that.  I want to be sure the
> spreadsheet
> >> formulas are exactly right since I intend for that spreadsheet to be
> passed
> >> along to be used in the future to cut down  on reinventions of the wheel
> >> and ensure greater accuracy.
> >>
> >> With the regional charts, I intend upon having multiple check sum
> >> calculations to avoid that "on the cusp" issue as I saw that risk which
> is
> >> part of the reason I decided to handle that tabulation separately.
> >>
> >> I truly appreciate your giving it a look-see.
> >>
> >> The report is also on LPedia at this point:
> >>
> https://lpedia.org/Document:National_Convention_2020_Notification_of_Delegate_Alllocations
> >>
> >> As that all had to be manually typed and eyes cross very easily, I do
> >> solicit a few eagle-eyed proof-readers to double-check that I
> transcribed
> >> correctly.  I would be shocked if I didn't transpose a few.
> >>
> >> *In Liberty,*
> >>
> >> * Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome
> >> (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
> >> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If anyone
> >> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social
> faux
> >> pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 5:20 PM Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <
> >> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Looking at the delegate allocations:
> >>>
> >>> 1) There appears to be a spreadsheet formula error in the New Hampshire
> >>> row, in the "Delegate Allocation % of Members" column.  It ought to be
> >>> 1.178%, but it is showing 1.200%.  I took a look at your source file,
> and
> >>> the other formulas in the column multiply by 100 before rounding to 3
> >>> digits, but that row rounds to three digits before multiplying by 100,
> >>> which is why the precision was lost on that row.  This didn't impact
> the
> >>> calculation of their delegate allocation, though, as it wasn't based on
> >>> that column.
> >>>
> >>> 2)  While the ROUNDUP() function is exactly what should be used for
> >>> calculating the "earned delegates" columns (because the bylaws say
> states
> >>> get credit for "fractions thereof"), the percent-of-total calculations
> >>> will
> >>> have better cumulative precision by instead using the ROUND() function.
> >>> Unless a division remainder is 0, the ROUNDUP() will always take that
> >>> final
> >>> decimal place to the next higher number, whereas the ROUND() function
> >>> will
> >>> statistically take half of them higher and half of them lower.  As the
> >>> results of these roundings are cumulated into a sum, the effect of the
> >>> ROUND() function tends to nearly cancel itself out with more and more
> >>> numbers in the sum, but the ROUNDUP() function will push the sum higher
> >>> and
> >>> higher as more numbers are added to the sum.
> >>>
> >>> The cumulative effect of the always-round-up approach can be easily
> >>> demonstrated.  For the ROUNDUP() function, the sum of all the affiliate
> >>> percentages plus the percentage in "Other" comes out to be 100.025%,
> but
> >>> the same sum with the ROUND() function comes out to be 100.001, which
> is
> >>> much more precise.
> >>>
> >>> The difference doesn't impact the way the delegate allocations were
> >>> calculated, but if the same ROUNDUP() approach were to be used for
> >>> calculating region formation percentages, and a region adds up
> >>> percentages
> >>> to verify that they hit the 10% target, it is more likely that a region
> >>> very, very close to the 10% threshold could think that they're over
> when
> >>> they're really slightly under.  It can still happen with ROUND(), but
> it
> >>> is
> >>> more likely to happen with ROUNDUP().  The regions will avoid the issue
> >>> completely by just adding the region's sustaining membership counts and
> >>> manually dividing by the total (minus the "other" category), rather
> than
> >>> adding up percentages which have (of necessity) been rounded.  And
> again,
> >>> it's only a risk with regions right on the border of 10% (or multiple
> >>> thereof).
> >>>
> >>> -Alicia
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 3:38 AM Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
> >>> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > Please see attached sent over the weekend to the affiliates.
> >>> Regionals,
> >>> > please make sure that your state chairs received.  I am not confident
> >>> of
> >>> > the freshness of the state chairs emails available.  It has also been
> >>> > posted on the state chairs list.
> >>> >
> >>> > Mr. Hayes, please make available on the convention site.  It will
> also
> >>> be
> >>> > available (as well as any subsequent manuals) on lpedia. A Word copy
> >>> will
> >>> > be deposited in the central records repository developed by Mr.
> >>> Fishman and
> >>> > myself.
> >>> >
> >>> > For future secretaries, I have created a spreadsheet which will
> >>> > auto-calculate these items with several "check sum" backcheck
> features.
> >>> > You can view that document here:
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>>
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1KyisBqMzDFhW-1WzbemyIZRCFwMK-lK7_lHtRGB-hvE
> >>> >
> >>> > I will be spending a good bit of the time between now and convention
> >>> > preparing training materials in the event that there is a new
> secretary
> >>> > elected next convention.
> >>> >
> >>> > *  In Liberty,*
> >>> > * Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's
> Syndrome
> >>> > (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
> >>> > communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If
> anyone
> >>> > found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social
> >>> faux
> >>> > pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know.
> >>> *
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>
>