User talk:Kristomun: Difference between revisions
m
no edit summary
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) (→Category:Consensus multiwinner methods: response about consensus) |
mNo edit summary |
||
Line 25:
:: 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)
::: Centrist multiwinner methods, I'd call majoritarian (although that might not work for Range as it doesn't pass the majority criterion to begin with). A method like [[Minimax approval]] is rather "anti-centrist" - compared to proportional representation, centrist ones favor large blocs and minimax/consensus ones favor small ones.
::: I don't have much sunk into the name, so if you could think of a better one, I wouldn't have a problem changing it. I guess the problem is that it's hard to summarize just what these councils are (nonproportional, but not majoritarian/centrist), so I just went with consensus due to its use when the council uses a consensus/supermajority/unanimity method to vote on issues. [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 17:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
| |||