[EM] Proportional representation.

[Kevin Venzke]

I do not think proportionality of seats won would be sufficient for an outcome to be called proportional/equitable. If you elect representatives to a legislative chamber that makes decisions by majority rule, you could reasonably fear that there will not be proportionality of "benefit" received from the policies enacted, no matter how you elected the representatives.
Kevin

      De : Richard Lung <voting at ukscientists.com>
 À : EM <election-methods at lists.electorama.com> 
 Envoyé le : Mercredi 3 août 2016 14h08
 Objet : [EM] Proportional representation.
   
  
 To all,
 Social choice theory seems to deny fairness of elections without an adequate fairness criterion. The Oxford dictionary defines fair as equitable, which is to say proportional. Obviously, then, according to social choice theory there is no fair electoral system, because its rules do not allow for the proportional count criterion of fairness. (It is based on preference voting - necessary but not sufficient - Iain Maclean, Democracy and New Technology.)
 It recently occured to me that social choice theory is an ethnocentric apology for the hounding of proportional representation from some 20 American cities. 
 
 From
 Richard Lung.
 
  -- 
Richard Lung.

E-books (mostly available free or reader-sets-price)
http://www.voting.ukscientists.com/colverse.html
Includes the series of books on:
Democracy Science (starting with electoral reform and research);
Commentaries (literature and liberty; science and democracy);
Collected verse (in five books). 
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info


  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20160804/773b5b55/attachment.htm>