Cardinal proportional representation: Difference between revisions
Cardinal proportional representation (view source)
Revision as of 03:27, 22 March 2022
, 2 years ago→Philosophies
m (Clean up some capitalization, remove rename notice) |
Dr. Edmonds (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 26:
*
*Under the [[Phragmén's Method| Phragmén interpretation]], voting is a distribution problem where the representation weight of candidates must be fairly spread across the different voters to produce the most equitable representation possible. The winner set composed of candidates which best distribute the candidates representation is the most proportional.
*Under the [[Monroe's method | Monroe interpretation]] (or Enestrom Phragmen interpretaion), voting is an attribution problem where every candidate has a [[ quota]] of voters to be filled with specific voters. The winner set composed of candidates which maximizes the sum of score for the voters in that candidate’s quota is the most proportional. The voting method is impartial to how anybody outside of that candidate’s quota rates them.
*Under the Thiele interpretation, voters have vote weight which should be distributed across candidates. The proportion of ballot weight assigned to each winner is the amount which that candidate supports their election. Under this interpretation, the more an outcome maximizes the sum of all score when reweighted by ballot weight, the more proportional it is.
**Thiele's [[party list case]] is the [[Highest averages method]]<nowiki/>s.
Line 92:
Phragmen/Monroe-type methods fail 1. and Thiele-type methods fail 2. and as of this point, it doesn’t seem possible to have them both without giving up PR.
== Notes ==
Because rated voting methods allow a voter to give no candidate the highest score, it is possible to give some voters less power to their ballots if they choose it. See [[normalization]] for discussion on this.
| |||