People often use Proportional Representation as if it is a criterion. As it is explain on the Proportional representation page the situation is more complicated. In the case of partisan voting it is a measure so a number to be calculated. In the non-partisan situation there are a ton of inconsistent definitions. It would be worth while to making a comment about that here. People make come here looking for the "proportional Representation Criterion" --Dr. Edmonds (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- The most agreeable way to put it is that any method that passes the Hare quota criterion is at least semi-PR (if you want to make a note about Webster RRV, then maybe mention the quota criterion if does pass i.e. whatever is larger than the Hare quota). I'd go further and say that historically, partisan and ranked PR methods were dominant, and so PSC was (and still is?) considered a major measure of proportionality, and that recently, there's been a push by cardinal PR supporters to broaden the field and the definition of PR.
- I am not advocating that we should come up with the definition of the "proportional Representation Criterion". I do not think there can be one and there will always be debate. My point is that we should comment on the fact that no such criteria exists nor will it ever. This is a super important because many people talk about "PR systems" as if that has meaning. This page should educate readers about the lack of definition. --Dr. Edmonds (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)