Talk:Voting system criterion: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
Dr. Edmonds (talk | contribs) (Created page with "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 th...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
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" --[[User:Dr. Edmonds|Dr. Edmonds]] ([[User talk:Dr. Edmonds|talk]]) 18:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC) |
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" --[[User:Dr. Edmonds|Dr. Edmonds]] ([[User talk: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. |
|||
Revision as of 18:50, 24 April 2020
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.