Proportional representation: Difference between revisions
Undo revision 7668 by 69.172.158.251 (talk) it's not a "citation neede
(→Advocacy: Fix conflation of proportional representation with group quotas) |
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) (Undo revision 7668 by 69.172.158.251 (talk) it's not a "citation neede) Tag: Undo |
||
Line 55:
# There is a clear relationship between the vote and the endorsement for a single party
This means that only [[Partisan Systems]] can be exactly proportional. Conversely, no system has no{{clarify}} Proportional Representation since metrics like [[Gallagher index]] never reach the maximum values. The criteria above are often used to define proportionality for modern systems like [[Reweighted Range Voting]] or [[Sequential proportional approval voting]]. The most common being Hare Quota Criterion. These are normally implemented as a number of multi-member districts that together form a parliament. Each district produces results guaranteed to pass the Hare Quota Criterion.
The district magnitude of a system (i.e. the number of seats in a constituency) plays a vital role in determining how proportional an electoral system can be. When using such systems, the greater the number of seats in a district or constituency, the more Proportional Representation it will achieve.
| |||