Proportional representation: Difference between revisions

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).

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]].

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.

[[Category:Proportional voting methods|*]]