  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 welfarist rule can satisfy our new axioms,
and we prove that no such rule can satisfy the core. Conversely, some welfarist
fairness properties cannot be guaranteed by Phragm\'en-type rules. This
formalizes the difference between the two types of proportionality. We then
introduce an attractive committee rule, the Method of Equal Shares, which
satisfies a property intermediate between the core and extended justified
representation (EJR). It satisfies laminar proportionality, priceability, and
is computable in polynomial time. We show that our new rule provides a
logarithmic approximation to the core. On the other hand, PAV provides a
factor-2 approximation to the core, and this factor is optimal for rules that
are fair in the sense of the Pigou--Dalton principle.
