You didn't cite 1, which seems to me to be a number of seats in which proportional representation is completely unworkable.
Of course, it depends highly on how you perform the apportioning. For example, in a 3 seat election, what % of the vote does a party need in order to get a seat? Is it 33%? Less? Also, in situations where there are not parties, how does one determine the fairness of apportionment?
As far as better: Generally, the amount of work that gets done scales with the number of people involved, though not linearly. At the same time, the more the people involved in work disagree, the less work that gets done. Depending on how much they disagree, it could reach 0. This is probably why it's very uncommon to have dual-leadership: If both people get along, you could just have one as deputy of the other. If they don't, they'll cancel out whatever work would get completed.
Therefore, as the number of people in a job increases, the less they have to agree in order for work to get done. In a small group such as the Executive Committee of the USFA, the opportunity cost of the members not agreeing on working together could be extremely high. Of course, this all depends on how well the different candidates for an office could work together, and that's something everyone would have to work for themselves.
Linear Mode
