TL;DR
This paper compares two historical voting rules, Phragmén and Thiele, analyzing their proportionality properties, introducing new axioms, and proposing a new rule that balances fairness and computational efficiency.
Contribution
It introduces two new proportionality axioms, compares Phragmén and Thiele rules, and proposes the Method of Equal Shares as a computationally efficient, fair alternative.
Findings
Phragmén's rule satisfies laminar proportionality and priceability.
Thiele's rule satisfies proportionality axioms but not the new ones.
The Method of Equal Shares approximates the core within a logarithmic factor.
Abstract
We study two influential voting rules proposed in the 1890s by Phragm\'en and Thiele, which elect a committee or parliament of k candidates which proportionally represents the voters. Voters provide their preferences by approving an arbitrary number of candidates. Previous work has proposed proportionality axioms satisfied by Thiele's rule (now known as Proportional Approval Voting, PAV) but not by Phragm\'en's rule. By proposing two new proportionality axioms (laminar proportionality and priceability) satisfied by Phragm\'en but not Thiele, we show that the two rules achieve two distinct forms of proportional representation. Phragm\'en's rule ensures that all voters have a similar amount of influence on the committee, and Thiele's rule ensures a fair utility distribution. Thiele's rule is a welfarist voting rule (one that maximizes a function of voter utilities). We show that no…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
