Proportionality Degree of Multiwinner Rules

Abstract

We study multiwinner elections with approval-based preferences. An instance of a multiwinner election consists of a set of alternatives, a population of voters---each voter approves a subset of alternatives, and the desired committee size $k$; the goal is to select a committee (a~subset) of $k$ alternatives according to the preferences of the voters. We investigate a number of election rules and ask whether the committees that they return represent the voters proportionally. In contrast to the classic literature, we employ quantitative techniques that allow to measure the extent to which the considered rules are proportional. This allows us to arrange the rules in a clear hierarchy. For example, we find that Proportional Approval Voting (PAV) has better proportionality guarantees than its sequential counterpart, and that Phragm\'{e}n's Sequential Rule is worse than Sequential PAV. Yet, the loss of proportionality for the two sequential rules is moderate and in some contexts can be outweighed by their other appealing properties. Finally, we measure the tradeoff between proportionality and utilitarian efficiency for a broad subclass of committee election rules.