On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Warren Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > Kristofer Munsterhjelm asked me what "proportional representation" (PR) means. > > At this time it is probably unwise to make a too-precise definition > since every PR voting method seems to obey a different proportionality > theorem. I say you should just assess each theorem on a case by case > basis to see if you like it. > > But a somewhat imprecise definition is: > I would say that any voting method which elects W winers from N > candidates (arbitrary 0<W<N) with the property that > "under an assumption of 'standard racist' voter behavior, it always > elects the same > proportions of different-'color' candidates as the voters (provided > enough candidates of > each color run) up to some reasonable error bound" is PR. > However > * what is the 'standard racist' voter behavior? > * what are the 'error bounds'? (Once they get poor enough, they > would no longer be acceptable, but I propose no precise threshhold)
I am not sure referring to "racism" is a good plan :). Something like "Any group representing more than N/M of the voters, where M is the number of seats to be filled, must be able to guarantee that N of their candidates are elected (assuming they run enough candidates)". I think all PR methods meet this (as it is the Hare quota). Also, a reasonable definition for ranked methods is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_for_Solid_Coalitions ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
