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

[Toby Pereira]

Although, come to think of it, I think we discussed this before, and you said that that full proportionality for every party is not what you're after - http://election-methods.5485.n7.nabble.com/EM-Proportional-multi-winner-ranked-voting-methods-guidelines-tc34205.html#a34225



      From: Toby Pereira <tdp201b at yahoo.co.uk>
 To: VoteFair <electionmethods at votefair.org>; "election-methods at lists.electorama.com" <election-methods at lists.electorama.com> 
 Sent: Sunday, 4 June 2017, 18:43
 Subject: Re: [EM] Resume: Proportional multi-winner ranked voting methods - guidelines?
   
People often talk about Droop proportionality but proportionality for solid coalitions can be Droop or Hare. If a ranked system meets neither, it probably isn't proportional as most people would define it.

      From: VoteFair <electionmethods at votefair.org>
 To: election-methods at lists.electorama.com 
 Sent: Sunday, 4 June 2017, 18:27
 Subject: Re: [EM] Resume: Proportional multi-winner ranked voting methods - guidelines?
  
> ...
 > The LCR example is a concrete example that giving the
 > first seat to the CW makes the method fail Droop
 > proportionality.

I do not regard Droop proportionality as an important criteria to meet. 
It is based on looking at each ballot one candidate at a time, right?

Looking at one candidate at a time is what instant-runoff voting does, 
and we know how unfair that can be.

Richard Fobes



   

   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20170605/020d92d0/attachment.htm>