An Axiomatic Analysis of Proportionality Notions in Approval-Based Multiwinner Voting
Chris Dong, Jannik Peters

TL;DR
This paper introduces an axiomatic framework for analyzing proportionality notions in approval-based multiwinner voting, providing characterizations of PJR+ and EJR+ and clarifying their normative foundations.
Contribution
It offers the first axiomatic characterizations of PJR+ and EJR+ and introduces witness-based proportionality notions, advancing the theoretical understanding of proportionality in voting.
Findings
Characterizes PJR+ and EJR+ using axioms like monotonicity.
Shows PJR+ is the minimal requirement for proportionality.
Provides a framework for witness-based proportionality notions.
Abstract
Even though proportional representation is a fundamental goal in multiwinner voting and a plethora of proportionality notions has been introduced, the normative justifications for choosing one notion over another remain poorly understood. We address this by introducing the axiomatic study of proportionality notions in the approval-based multiwinner voting setting. That is, we define axioms (or desirable properties) that ``good'' proportionality notions should possess. Using these axioms, we then provide axiomatic characterizations of two prominent recently introduced notions: PJR+ and EJR+ [Brill and Peters 2023]. Our characterization proceeds in two parts. Firstly, we provide a characterization of refinements of PJR+ and EJR+. That is, we define axioms such that any notion satisfying these axioms must imply PJR+ (or EJR+, respectively). In particular, the fundamental axiom…
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.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
