Proportional representation: Difference between revisions
→Example Systems
Dr. Edmonds (talk | contribs) (→Further reading: Added a pretty good link) |
|||
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 [[
== Alternatives ==
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
See the [[combinatorics]] article for more information.
| |||