Proportional representation: Difference between revisions
→Semi-proportional Systems
Dr. Edmonds (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 74:
Semi-Proportional systems can be constructed from any multi-winner system. However, they are typically done with sequential non-partisan systems, such as the [[single transferable vote]] and [[Reweighted score voting]]. The most common criticism of such systems have to do with inequalities that arise from the difference in population densities. Having a 5 member district in a sparsely populated rural area would imply that the district be much larger than similar districts in cities. To avoid this it is sometimes proposed that rural areas have single member district while cities have multi-member districts. This then results in another inequality relating to the partisan allocation of funds do to some seats being simpler to win with different systems. A good example of such failures which ultimately resulted in returning to the original system is provincial Canada.<ref>https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-single-transferable-vote-1.5271771</ref>
An alternative, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-proportional_representation#Non-partisan_systems more common] definition of semi-proportional is that a voting method must pass some weak form of [[Proportionality for Solid Coalitions]] e.g. allowing voters to get PSC-like outcomes through strategic voting. Something like [[SNTV]] would classify as semi-proportional under this definition.
==Advocacy==
| |||