Talk:Proportionality for Solid Coalitions

I feel like this needs to be unified with Proportional_representation#Proportional_Representation_Criteria. Specifically the Hare Quota Criterion. PSC feels like it belongs in this section not the Proportional_representation#Non-Partisan_Definitions section. The issue is the most of the philosophy stuff is from a cardinal perspective. --Dr. Edmonds (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it can't be in both sections, since it doesn't explicitly mention parties, and is a very commonly-understood way of thinking about PR which isn't included by any of the cardinal philosophies. Anyways, I've written a Weak forms of PSC section that I think the Hare quota criterion and the Proportional (Ideological) Representation Criterion could simply be considered a part of. In that sense, it would be possible to simply say "a voting method is at least semi-proportional if it passes one of these weak forms of PSC." But I'm genuinely unsure of how to do the unification here, because PSC is too complex to fully explicate in the main PR article. For now, I'll simply mention in that article which of the criteria are weak forms of PSC. BetterVotingAdvocacy (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

BetterVotingAdvocacy I would think of PSC more like Justified representation than Monroe philosophy since it is more of a criteria than a philosophy. If it can be stated in a philosophical way which is distinct from Monroe then please add this explanation. I guess the point is that the advocacy groups like to claim that Proportional Representation is a clearly defined thing and that there are "proportional System". This is not the case. The more ways we can spell out the issues with that oversimplification the better. I would err on the side of writing a lot on the Proportional representation page since it is the dominant narrative for reform. --Dr. Edmonds (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)