User talk:Kristomun: Difference between revisions
→Category:Consensus multiwinner methods: response about consensus
No edit summary |
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) (→Category:Consensus multiwinner methods: response about consensus) |
||
Line 20:
: This should probably go on a page, but I haven't found enough sources... and I don't think I can source the name "consensus method" anywhere. [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 09:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
:: Hmm, ok. To me, "consensus" is a term used in single-winner methods to indicate that the winner is a good representative of the entire electorate, like a Condorcet winner or utilitarian winner, "centrist" relative to the electorate. https://www.reddit.com/r/EndFPTP/comments/afllvv/
:: Borda count is described as a consensus method, for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borda_count#As_a_consensual_method
:: Parker Friedland has a somewhat different definition here: https://forum.electionscience.org/t/is-there-a-better-word-for-utilitarian-consensual/77/9
:: And so a multi-winner consensus method would choose a group of "centrist" candidates like this instead of trying to achieve proportional representation. So what Clay Shentrup prefers: "If you think PR is good, you say the three most outer. If you're more like me (skeptical of PR), you say the three center (just barely partisan) are best." https://groups.google.com/d/msg/electionscience/Rk4ZGf-s-s8/AZlBMjajBwAJ — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 17:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
| |||