House monotonicity criterion: Difference between revisions
m
fix typo
(Give a source for the multiwinner extension of house monotonicity) |
m (fix typo) |
||
Line 7:
That is, a state must never lose a seat from the number of total seats increasing. The [[Alabama paradox]] is an example of a house monotonicity failure.
By extension, the house monotonicity criterion for a multi-member method is:<ref name="Woodall 1994 Properties">{{cite journal | last=Woodall |first=D. |title=Properties of preferential election
{{Definition|No candidate should be harmed by an increase in the number of seats to be filled, with no change to the profile.}}
| |||