Kata

Simple random tests show that either the reference solution is incorrect or the description is incomplete.

https://docs.codewars.com/curating/kata/#review

Hi,

It is always a trade off how much to tell and how much not to tell. You have to do a little more thinking yourself in this kata, just as I had to do when I created it. At least you have the same amount of data as I did because I added a link to a Wiki page in English language.

The residual seats are hard to understand, but interesting. And there are two different mechanisms (that's why I called it 'Double Dutch'):

• INITIAL... Let's say that one by one you calculate who is left with the highest average number of votes per seat IF a party (or combination) would get the seat. A party can theoratically get for instance 5 residual seats.

• Within a COMBINATION (your question). Here a party can only get 1 residual seat. Seats go to the parties with the highest residue of votes.

Combination example:

Total seats gained by the combination: 10 Allocation:

• A: 1.05 seats
• B: 1.66 seats
• C: 2.65 seats
• D: 4.64 seats

Then the correct result would be for the combination (1+1+2+4=8 seats allocated immediatly):

• A: 1.05 = 1 + 0 = 1
• B: 1.66 = 1 + 1 = 2 (got the first residual seat because 0.66 is higher than 0.65, 0.64 and 0.05)
• C: 2.65 = 2 + 1 = 3 (got the second residual seat because 0.65 is higher than 0.64 and 0.05)
• D: 4.64 = 4 + 0 = 4

I see, that's what I was feeling. It's simply the way to deal with rounding when working with floating numbers.

Few changes I would expect:

• explain that residual seats are seats that are still left to allocate due to rouding
• a more visible link to the wiki page
• say that the "D'Hondt method" is used for the highest averages (there are more than one highest average method)

You have to do a little more thinking yourself in this kata, just as I had to do when I created it

OK, but trying to understand the description should never be part of the task.

Yeah, this description is a pain. Also allocating the remaining residual seats after combinations have been handled is a complete mystery. I wanted to solve this kata out of loving memory for Pim, but F it, just not worth it.

Everything you need to know is in the description. Just read better. From my 30 years of experience that is sometimes hard for developers (also when I read the comments here).

And yes, kata is hard. I did the kata myself too and had a problem with it.

Don't patronise me, in my long career I've always challenged bad specs.

You don't want to be patronized?

I tried very very hard to understand what you do not understand. Everything is written down. What is not to understand about the line below? Is it maybe the word 'standard' that you read as 'allocation of seats excluding residual seats'? No clue, the sentence below talks about 'standard allocation' as opposed to 'allocation within combination'.

'A combination is treated as 1 party but after the standard allocation the seats gathered by the combination need to be allocated again to its individual members.'

Keep opposing bad specs! You will not find them in this kata.

Hi Thom!

At first my respect for you! Nice clean solution. This is not an easy solution :)

You probably already know the answer by now. But the answer is (when creating the kata I also had a problem finding out):

• If a party does not have enough votes in the standard way, the party cannot participate in a combination and the votes are NOT counted for that combination.

I can declare you an official expert on the Dutch voting system now! ;) I do not a single person who know how it works here in The Netherlands. Just for the record:

• In the 2017 elections it is no longer possible to do combinations. That makes the calculation a whole lot easier and less interesting...
• Due to the Dutch election system we need now (2017) at least 4 parties to get a majority and to form a government. I do not know if other countries should fancy a system like ours with the very low threshold.

Hello Frank,

I actually quite enjoyed the kata, as I like to learn new systems and understand how they work. I'm sure there are very interesting stories as to how the current system came about. I can only imagine the discussions and debate about each step in the process. It's quite intersting to me as an American where we basically get to pick from Column A or Column B for the most part.

As for the Kata, perhaps I'd suggest you just mention you above answer as to how to handle combinations (or mention that no tests will cover this condition, and thus folks can assume all combinations only contain parties that meet the threshold).

I also found this link Wikipedia : Elections In the Netherlands to be helpful in understanding the seat assignments as an outsider. It may come in handy for others as well.

Thanks again for the kata, I enjoyed it. My code is, as per usual for me, not concise or perhaps the most efficient, but I tend toward more verbose code that seems, at least to me, easier to read. Thanks again and cheers.

Hello Thom,

Thanks for your link! I used it in my description.

I find it very interesting, comparing the Dutch system and other systems like the English and American.

Sometimes I get influenced by this website too and try to write also one liners and 1 character variables. But really complex problems, in my humble opinion, can only be solved by well structured and readable code. Cheers!