Sequential proportional approval voting: Difference between revisions
Sequential proportional approval voting (view source)
Revision as of 00:03, 24 March 2021
, 3 years ago→Description: Sainte-Laguë is more fair to smaller factions, not D'Hondt
Dr. Edmonds (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
m (→Description: Sainte-Laguë is more fair to smaller factions, not D'Hondt) |
||
Line 7:
At each stage, the unelected candidate with the highest approval score is elected. Then the value of each voter’s ballot is set at ''1/(1+m)'' where ''m'' is the number of candidates approved on that ballot who were already elected, until the required number of candidates is elected.
The system disadvantages minority groups who share some preferences with the majority. In terms of [[tactical voting]], it is therefore desirable to [[ Free riding | free ride ]] by withholding approval from candidates who are likely to be elected in any case. With the standard [[Jefferson method]] based reweighing it favours large factions in an attempt to mitigate [[Free_riding#Vote_Management | vote management]]. On the other hand [[
It is however a much computationally simpler algorithm than (and can be considered a sequential form of) [[proportional approval voting]], permitting votes to be counted either by hand or by computer, rather than requiring a computer to determine the outcome of all but the simplest elections.<ref name="AzizGaspers2014">{{Cite book|title=Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Autonomous Agents & Multiagent Systems: May, 4 - 8, 2015, Istanbul, Turkey|date=2015|publisher=ACM|editor-last=International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems|location=New York, NY|chapter=Computational Aspects of Multi-Winner Approval Voting |chapterurl=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1407.3247v1.pdf |pages=107–115 |isbn=978-1-4503-3413-6}}</ref>
| |||