[EM] Voting reform statement; a clearer and more inspiring version

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

Peter Zbornik wrote:
> Dear all,
>  
> please consider including a list of endorsed election methods for 
> proportional elections, just as you have done for single winner 
> elections. Otherwise the bold statement will just cover one special case 
> in election theory - single winner elections.
>  
> Furthermore you might consider covering the issues of
> (i) proportional rank orders. For instance when electing the party list 
> in primaries, in countries where closed lists are used.
> (ii) proportional rank orders to elect a hierarchy of functions 
> proportionally, like board president, vice presidents and other board 
> members.

I think it would be better to have a separate statement for details 
about multiwinner methods than to put everything into one grand 
document, so as not to burden the latter too greatly. The statement 
we're considering now could have details about what single-winner 
methods we agree to support and then say "just about all multiwinner 
methods but closed list", then, if necessary, have another statement 
that mentions proportional rank orders, STV/QPQ/Schulze STV, open list, 
and so on.

Perhaps it would be enough to say "anything but closed list" and be done 
without needing a second statement, as multiwinner methods have the 
advantage of multiple seats to even out strange results that would 
otherwise make for a bad method. On the other hand, it may be useful to 
have a common position on semiproportional methods (SNTV, parallel 
voting and limited vote systems, and so on).