[EM] Resume: Proportional multi-winner ranked voting methods -

[steve bosworth]

Hi Armondo,
In response to your kind thanks below,  I would still like to point out that in contrast to  Associational Proportional Representation (APR), the "proportional multi-winner Condorcet [method] in very large magnitude constituencies" which you currently seem to prefer would still "waste" some citizen's votes both quantitatively and qualitatively.  Also, each of the Condorcet methods for counting the votes is much more difficult for ordinary citizens to understand.
What do you think?
Steve

Today's Topics:

   1. Resume: Proportional multi-winner ranked voting methods -
      guidelines? (Armando)

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 21 May 2017 20:10:09 -0600
From: Armando <pitocco.ma at anche.no>
To: election-methods at lists.electorama.com
Subject: [EM] Resume: Proportional multi-winner ranked voting methods
        - guidelines?
Message-ID: <9E82038C-45B7-4BBF-88D8-73D2F0756D3C at anche.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

I want to thank you everybody for your useful and attentive comments, although I remained silent I read everything. I?m glad to have found this mailing list, very interesting discussions.
In these months I continued discussing about these themes in my organization.
After reading your reflections, actually I think that any proportional multi-winner Condorcet (different from traditional STV) in very large magnitude constituencies (more similar too original Hare idea) should not be affected by the various problems you mentioned and satisfy my original question. Soon I?ll send you some more questions, since you are so kind.

Meanwhile I?ll be thankful for any advice of further readings if you have.
Best regards,
Armando Pitocco






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20170602/8d4dd80e/attachment.htm>