House monotonicity criterion: Difference between revisions
Give a source for the multiwinner extension of house monotonicity
Dr. Edmonds (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
(Give a source for the multiwinner extension of house monotonicity) |
||
Line 7:
That is, a state must never lose a seat from the number of total seats increasing. The [[Alabama paradox]] is an example of a house monotonicity failure.
By extension, the house monotonicity criterion for a multi-member method is:<ref name="Woodall 1994 Properties">{{cite journal | last=Woodall |first=D. |title=Properties of preferential election ruiles | journal=Voting matters | issue=3 | pages=8–15 | year=1994 | url=http://www.votingmatters.org.uk/ISSUE3/P5.HTM}}</ref>
{{Definition|
House monotone multi-member methods are sometimes called proportional orderings or proportional rankings<ref>{{cite web|url=http://9mail-de.spdns.de/m-schulze/schulze2.pdf|title=Free Riding and Vote Management under Proportional Representation by the Single Transferable Vote|date=2011-03-14|author=Markus Schulze|page=42}}</ref>, and James Green-Armytage's [[Proportional Ordering]] is such a method. Sequential methods without deletion steps, such as [[sequential Ebert]] and [[Sequential Phragmen|sequential Phragmén]], are also house monotone.
| |||