You are going much too far here. It should at least be obvious that I put a great deal of work into analyzing this method. Do you really think I go to the trouble of working through all this merely to annoy people such as yourself?
It is at least clear that this surprisingly simple method would provide a very reasonable form of proportional representation.
It is utterly impossible to provide some degree of power to minorities in the absence of some sacrifice of some degree of power by majorities. From some perspective this will necessarily have to give the appearance of “deprecating,” or even “punishing,” if you insist, the majorities.
You should also bear in mind that in the U.S. it is not possible to define minority group membership other than in a case-by-case manner. It is not even possible to create an absolute definition of gender. This is because the rights of freedom of speech and of association are strongly supported. For a time I happened to be the only white person who was allowed to attend Black Panther rallies in my community. Did that make me black even though I am white? Who knows? (They were actually split down the middle because half were Muslim and half were hippies. Those were distinctly different outlooks indeed.) Solidarity is an amazingly ephemeral phenomenon.
I am of the opinion that the interactions of human beings in the context of political elections, since people are sentient and can manipulate those election systems in unforeseeable ways, cannot be reliably simulated by means of computer programs. There are too many unknown variables. It may be worth doing, but it would be a serious mistake to ignore its limitations.
Do you think every one who does not think the way you do should be eliminated?
I would never write about add-on multi-winner proportional representation if I had not worked very hard to verify that it would be feasible. You should at least show some respect for that degree of effort.