Proportional representation: Difference between revisions

removed references to weak monotonicity
(clarifying grammar)
(removed references to weak monotonicity)
Line 83:
===Comparison===
 
Phragmen and Monroe share many desirable and undesirable properties. Most importantly a lack of convexity (i.e. [[weak monotonicity]], the ability for votes that give every candidate the same score to effect the outcome. There are also election scenarios where both philosophies pick what is clearly the wrong winner. Further details can be found in the “Pereira’s Complaints about Monroe” section of [https://rangevoting.org/MonroeMW.html Monroe’s method] or the “Major defect pointed out by Toby Pereira” section of this [http://scorevoting.net/PRintLinprog.html Phragmen-Type method])
 
However neither not fail the [http://scorevoting.net/QualityMulti.html#faildesid universally liked candidate criterion] which is a criterion that Thiele type methods fail.
Line 94:
 
Adding ballots that give every candidate the same score can’t change which outcome is considered the best.
Convexity.
Convexity (Defined as Warren’s weak monotonicity criteria on the document).
WeakWarren's multi-winner participation (also defined on the document)criteria.
 
'''Criticisms of the Phragmen metric:'''
Anonymous user