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

[VoteFair]

Alas, vote-counting methods that are easy to explain tend to be 
simplistic.  In contrast, fairer vote-counting methods tend to be more 
difficult to explain.  This applies to multi-winner methods as well as 
single-winner methods.

In the world of single-winner methods, the classic example is that 
instant-runoff voting is easy to explain, but produces less-fair results 
compared to pairwise-counting (Condorcet) methods, which are more 
difficult to explain.

As for "examples of condorcet multi winner variants being used in real 
life," it's difficult to find real-use examples of multi-winner methods 
of any kind that use more than single-mark ballots.

Expressed another way, the switch from single-mark ballots to multi-mark 
ballots (approval, 1-2-3, or score type) shifts from simplistic 
vote-counting methods to more-difficult-to-explain methods -- without 
even considering the complication of switching from single-winner to 
multi-winner results.

Richard Fobes


On 6/3/2017 4:14 PM, Mat Danaher wrote:
> Hi all don't comment on this list much but has anyone got any examples
> of condorcet multi winner variants being used in real life?
>
> It is something I'm interested in and am think about making a case for
> using it for a grant awarding trust to decide projects to support... the
> method only has to be understood by trustees who are all fairly astute
> and patient people.
>
> Thanks and all the best
>
> Mat
>
>
> On Sat, 3 Jun 2017 at 10:41, steve bosworth <stevebosworth at hotmail.com
> <mailto:stevebosworth at hotmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     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 youcurrently 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 <mailto:pitocco.ma at anche.no>>
>     To: election-methods at lists.electorama.com
>     <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     ----
>     Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
>     list info
>
> --
> Sent from my iPhone apologies for spelling and brevity
>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>