Talk:Proportional representation: Difference between revisions

:::: Is this not the [[Proportional_representation#Hare_Quota_Criterion | 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)
::::: To guarantee that a majority of voters always wins at least half of the seats, something like Droop or D'Hondt proportionality is necessary. This is because a majority group always has at least half of all HB quotas, but may have one less full Hare quota than half of the Hare quotas. The basic reasoning here is that even in the single-winner case, some PR methods meeting the Hare Quota criterion can allow a minority to win and a majority to get nothing i.e. because of higher utility. Also see Marylander's example of free riding with a Hare-based PR method denying the majority half the seats: [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 03:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
== Moving nonpartisan definitions ==
[[Dr. Edmonds]], would you mind if I move the nonpartisan cardinal definitions to the [[cardinal PR]] article? It doesn't seem like they need to take up all the space in this article; a link can be given. I'd rather focus the nonpartisan section on discussing things like nonpartisan vs partisan, etc. [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 20:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)