This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (January 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

A joint Politics and Economics series
Social choice and electoral systems
Social choice Mechanism design Comparative politics Comparison List (By country)
Single-winner methods Single vote - plurality methods First preference plurality (FPP) Two-round (US: Jungle primary) Partisan primary Instant-runoff UK: Alternative vote (AV) US: Ranked-choice (RCV) Condorcet methods Condorcet-IRV Round-robin voting Minimax Schulze Ranked pairs Maximal lottery Positional voting Plurality (el. IRV) Borda count (el. Baldwin) Antiplurality (el. Coombs) Cardinal voting Score voting Approval voting Majority judgment STAR voting
Proportional representation Party-list Apportionment Highest averages Largest remainders National remnant Biproportional List type Closed list Open list Panachage List-free PR Localized list Quota-remainder methods Hare STV Schulze STV CPO-STV Quota Borda Approval-based committees Thiele's method Phragmen's method Expanding approvals rule Method of equal shares Fractional social choice Direct representation Interactive representation Liquid democracy Fractional approval voting Maximal lottery Random ballot Semi-proportional representation Cumulative SNTV Limited voting
Mixed systems By results of combination Mixed-member majoritarian Mixed-member proportional By mechanism of combination Non-compensatory Parallel (superposition) Coexistence Conditional Fusion (majority bonus) Compensatory Seat linkage system UK: 'AMS' NZ: 'MMP' Vote linkage system Negative vote transfer Mixed ballot Supermixed systems Dual-member proportional Rural–urban proportional Majority jackpot By ballot type Single vote Double simultaneous vote Dual-vote
Paradoxes and pathologies Spoiler effects Spoiler effect Cloning paradox Frustrated majorities paradox Center squeeze Pathological response Perverse response Best-is-worst paradox No-show paradox Multiple districts paradox Strategic voting Lesser evil voting Exaggeration Truncation Turkey-raising Paradoxes of majority rule Tyranny of the majority Discursive dilemma Conflicting majorities paradox
Social and collective choice Impossibility theorems Arrow's theorem Majority impossibility Moulin's impossibility theorem McKelvey–Schofield chaos theorem Gibbard's theorem Positive results Median voter theorem Condorcet's jury theorem May's theorem Condorcet dominance theorems Harsanyi's utilitarian theorem
Politics portal Economics portal Mathematics portal
v t e

An expanding approvals rule (EAR) is a rule for multi-winner elections, which allows agents to express weak ordinal preferences (i.e., ranking with indifferences), and guarantees a form of proportional representation called proportionality for solid coalitions. The family of EAR was presented by Aziz and Lee.^[1][2]

In general, the EAR algorithm works as follows. Let n denote the number of voters, and k the number of seats to be filled. Initially, each voter is given 1 unit of virtual money. Groups of voters can use their virtual money to "buy" candidates, where the "price" of each candidate is ${\displaystyle n/k}$ (though the divisor can be slightly different; see highest averages method). The EAR goes rank by rank, starting at rank 1 which corresponds to the top candidates of the voters, and increasing the rank in each iteration. (This is where the term "expanding approvals" comes from: as the rank increases, the number of approved candidates expands.) For each rank r:

1. EAR checks if there is a candidate who can be afforded by all voters who rank this candidate r-th or better. If there is such a candidate, EAR selects one such candidate c (there are different variants regarding how to select this candidate), and adds c to the committee.
2. The "price" of n/k is deducted from the balance of voters who rank c r-th or better (there are different variants regarding how exactly the price is split among them).

Aziz and Lee^[1] prove that EAR satisfies generalized proportionality for solid coalitions (GPSC): a property for ordinal weak preferences that generalizes both proportionality for solid coalitions (for strict preferences) and proportional justified representation (for dichotomous preferences). Further, EAR can be computed in polynomial time and satisfies several weak candidate monotonicity properties.

Aziz and Lee^[2] extended EAR to the setting of combinatorial participatory budgeting.

The method of equal shares (MES) can be seen as a special case of EAR, in which, in step 1, the elected candidate is a candidate that can be purchased in the smallest price (in general, it is the candidate supported by the largest number of voters with remaining funds), and in step 2, the price is deducted as equally as possible (those who have insufficient budget pay all their remaining budget, and the others pay equally).^[3]

Single transferable vote (STV) can also be seen as a variant of EAR, in which voters always approve only their top candidate (r=1); however, if no candidate can be "purchased" by voters ranking it first, the candidate whose supporters have the fewest leftover votes is removed (this brings a new candidate to the top position of these voters). Like EAR, STV satisfies proportionality for solid coalitions. However, EAR allows weak rankings, whereas STV works only with strict rankings. Moreover, EAR has better candidate monotonicity properties. This addressed an open question by Woodall,^[4] who asked if there are rules with the same political properties as STV, which are more monotonic.