Proportional representation: Difference between revisions

(In advocacy, updated to mention current usage of STV in cities like Portland, OR and Albany, CA.)
(6 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1:
{{Wikipedia}}
'''Proportional representation''' ('''PR''') characterizes [[electoral system]]s in which divisions in an electorate are reflected proportionately in the elected body.<ref name=JSM7>{{cite book|last1=Mill|first1=John Stuart|author-link=John Stuart Mill|title=Considerations on Representative Government|chapter=Chapter VII, Of True and False Democracy; Representation of All, and Representation of the Majority only |chapter-url=http://www.gutenberg.org/files/5669/5669-h/5669-h.htm#link2HCH0007 |year=1861 |publisher=Parker, Son, & Bourn |location=London|title-link=Considerations on Representative Government}}</ref> The most widely used families of "proportional representation" electoral systems are [[party-list proportional representation|party-list PR]], the [[singlemixed-member transferableproportional voterepresentation]] (STVMMP), and the [[mixed-membersingle proportionaltransferable representationvote]] (MMPSTV).<ref name="DouglasHowPrElecWork">{{cite web|last=Amy|first=Douglas J|title=How Proportional Representation Elections Work |url=http://www.fairvote.org/how_proportional_representation_elections_work |publisher=[[FairVote]]| access-date=26 October 2017}}</ref>
 
[[Voting theorists]] frequently debate which systems can be called "proportional representation", and consider the levels of proportionality achieved by various systems from "low proportional" to "high proportional". The concept of "proportional representation" can be quantified as a measure of the outcome of an election where there are multiple parties and multiple members are elected, and the representatives are demographically similar to the voting population. It is one of many [[types of representation]] in a [[W:Representative government|representative government]].
Line 178:
 
====Evaluative Proportional Representation (EPR)====
Similar to [[Majority Judgment]] voting that elects single winners, Evaluative Proportional Representation (EPR) elects all the members of a legislative body. Both systems remove the qualitative wasting of votes.<ref>{{cite book|author= M. Balinski & R. Laraki|year=2010|title=Majority Judgment. |publisher=MIT |isbn=978-0-262-01513-4}}</ref> Each citizen grades the fitness for office of as many of the candidates as they wish as either Excellent (ideal), Very Good, Good, Acceptable, Poor, or Reject (entirely unsuitable). Multiple candidates may be given the same grade by a voter. Using EPR, each citizen elects their representative at-large for a city council. For a large and diverse state legislature, each citizen chooses to vote through any of the districts or official electoral associations in the country. Each voter grades any number of candidates in the whole country. Each elected representative has a different voting power (a different number of weighted votes) in the legislative body. This number is equal to the total number of votes given exclusively to each member from all citizens. Each member's weighted vote results from receiving one of the following from each voter: their highest grade, highest remaining grade, or proxy vote. No citizen's vote is "[[wasted vote|wasted]]"<ref>{{cite journal |first1=Stephen |last1=Bosworth |first2=AnderAnders |last2=Corr |first3=Stevan |last3=Leonard |name-list-style=amp |title=Legislatures Elected by Evaluative Proportional Representation (EPR): an Algorithm |url=http://www.jpolrisk.com/legislatures-elected-by-evaluative-proportional-representation-epr-an-algorithm-v2/|journal=Journal of Political Risk |volume=7 |number=8 |date=July 8, 2019 |access-date=August 19, 2019}}</ref> Unlike all the other proportional representation systems, each EPR voter, and each self-identifying minority or majority is quantitatively represented with exact proportionality. Also, like Majority Judgment, EPR reduces by almost half both the incentives and possibilities for voters to use Tactical Voting. {{See also|Tactical voting#Majority judgment}}
 
 
Line 222:
|-
| [[Sequential Ebert]] || [[Phragmén's Method | Phragmén interpretation]] ||
|-
|?
|[[Stable winner set]]
|Unknown whether a Hare-stable winner set always exists
|}
 
Line 231 ⟶ 235:
 
=== Criticisms ===
Some common criticisms of [[STV]] (which would likely hold for many other nonpartisan PR methods) are that it is too complex in terms of filling out the ballot and tabulation, that it takes too long to count compared to partisan PR methods (many of which are [[Precinctprecinct-summable]] due to being based on [[FPTP]]), and that it can even make representatives parochialist and focused on representing their multi-member districts rather than the state or nation as a whole. Note that this last criticism is inapplicable when nonpartisan PR methods are proposed for a single national/statewide district, though this is usually not proposed or done (with the exception of some 21-seaters in Australia).
 
== Alternatives ==
 
Due to the ambiguity and difficulty in the definition of Proportional Representation academic work often uses another more robust metric. This is the concept of a [[Stable Winner Set]]. The requirement that a system always produces a stable winner set when there exists one is definable in all possible systems. This makes it more useful than the concept of Proportional Representation which is typically tied to Partisan voting and as such cannot be defined for all systems. This concept evolved out of the economics field of [[Participatoryparticipatory budgeting]] but can be equally suitable in Social Choice Theory. A less strict and more practicalweaker version of this is given by [[Justifiedjustified representation]].
 
== Definitions ==
Line 246 ⟶ 250:
The party list case of a proportional voting method is what type of [[Party list]] allocation method it becomes equivalent to when voters vote in a "Party list"-like manner (i.e. they give maximal support to some candidates and no support to all others, as if voting on party lines). Generally, the party list case of a PR method will either be a [[Divisor method|divisor method]], such as [[D'Hondt]], or a [[Largest remainder method]], such as [[Hamilton]]. PR methods can generally be split into two categories: sequential (one winner is elected at a time) and optimal (every possible winner set is compared to each other and the best one is chosen).
 
Almost all sequential PR methods can have a single-winner method done to elect the final seat; this is because at that point there is only one seat left to elect. See [[Single transferable vote#Deciding the election of the final seat]] for an example. [[Condorcet methods]] and [[STAR voting]] can be made to work with PR methods in this way.
 
See the [[combinatorics]] article for more information.
Line 262 ⟶ 266:
* John Hickman and Chris Little. "Seat/Vote Proportionality in Romanian and Spanish Parliamentary Elections" ''Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans'' Vol. 2, No. 2, November 2000safd
* See the Proportional Representation Library (created by Professor Douglas J. Amy, Mount Holyoke College and now maintained by FairVote):
** [https://www.fairvote.org/proportional_representation_libraryarchives/proportional-representation-library/ FairVote]
** [http://web.archive.org/web/20161228205929/https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/prlib.htm Mount Holyoke College]
* [https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/29291 Scholarly Community Encyclopedia]
 
== References ==
Line 276 ⟶ 281:
[[Category:Types of representation]]
[[Category:Proportionality-related concepts]]
[[Category:Proportional voting methods|*]]