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

[Mat Danaher]

Hi everyone thanks for the useful and interesting responses.

Juho in particular raises an interesting point - yes the grants can be
different amounts and you're right we could factor magnitude of the grant
into the initial calculation - historically the trustees have all known
each other and have used consensus on everything - however last year they
couldn't reach consensus so agreed some form of majority voting could be
implemented for when consensus can't be achieved, they know I am an
organisation and decision making "geek" so asked me to find solutions...

I've got some reading to do!

Mat


On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 at 01:17, Armando <pitocco.ma at anche.no> wrote:

>
> El 2 jun 2017, a las 16:41, steve bosworth <stevebosworth at hotmail.com>
> escribió:
>
> 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.
>
>
> I’ve found your explication of APR
> http://election-methods.electorama.narkive.com/61PGaAbe/em-no-wasted-votes
> Maybe I didn’t understand, however the main feature is that MPs’ votes
> have different weight. It implies a different view of assembly. In Italy
> you should change Constitution.
> Actually I prefer that all MPs have the same dignity, and would like to
> find a system where assemblies represent globally all electors.
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>
-- 
Sent from my iPhone apologies for spelling and brevity
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20170604/2d870451/attachment.htm>