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).
Social choice theory, properly so called, originated in the field of
economics rather than political science. So it is unlikely to be "an
ethnocentric apology for the hounding of proportional representation
from some 20 American cities." On the other hand, its pedigree does help
account for some of its limitations when applied to public elections.
Fortunately, the formal study of election methods includes quite a bit
more than social choice theory.
--Bob Richard
On 8/3/2016 12:08 PM, Richard Lung wrote:
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
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@ukscientists.com>
À : EM election-methods@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
I think you are right. That's why Switzerland has PR of the executive as
well as the legislature. Also Northern Ireland with its power-sharing
executive.
The UN knows that majority rule would not work, but that east and West
must rule together.
From
Richard.
On 04/08/2016 22:35, Kevin Venzke wrote:
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@ukscientists.com
À : EM election-methods@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
http://electorama.com/emfor list info
--
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).