Talk:Proportional representation: Difference between revisions

No edit summary
::: The criterion says that a party that gets a majority of the votes must also get a majority of the seats; it's a special case of the quota criterion. D'Hondt meets it, but Sainte-Laguë/Webster does not, and in any case, it may be failed due to districting problems. I vaguely recall there being some uproar in Malta over just this. See (search for "In 1981"). In any case, I don't know of any English term for that criterion, and I would guess there probably isn't one because party list is neither used in the UK, the US, or Canada. If I had to translate the term, I'd call it something like "majority lower quota" or "majority quota criterion". (The corresponding "minority upper quota", that a minority of the votes can't give you a majority of the seats, is the [[w:de:Minderheitsbedingung]]. They're distinct in the case that e.g. no party has a majority: the majority quota criterion doesn't apply in such a case, but if one of the parties get a majority of the seats, then that violates the minority quota criterion.) [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 21:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
:::: Is this not the [[ || Hare Quota Criterion]]? This is the one I have seen most referenced as the multimember version of PR. --[[User:Dr. Edmonds|Dr. Edmonds]] ([[User talk:Dr. Edmonds|talk]]) 02:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)