<div>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?</div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>Thanks and all the best </div><div><br></div><div>Mat </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div>On Sat, 3 Jun 2017 at 10:41, steve bosworth <<a href="mailto:stevebosworth@hotmail.com">stevebosworth@hotmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div id="m_-5839986763428738983divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-size:14pt;color:#000000;font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">
<p><br>
</p>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt">
<div class="m_-5839986763428738983PlainText"><br>
Hi Armondo,</div>
<div class="m_-5839986763428738983PlainText">In response to your kind thanks below, I would still like to point out that in contrast to <span> Associational Proportional Representation (APR), the
</span>"<span>proportional multi-winner Condorcet [method] in very large magnitude constituencies" which you<span> 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.</span></span></div>
<div class="m_-5839986763428738983PlainText"><span><span>What do you think?</span></span></div>
<div class="m_-5839986763428738983PlainText"><span><span>Steve</span></span></div>
<span><span></span></span></span></font></div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span><span></span></span>
<div class="m_-5839986763428738983PlainText"><br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Resume: Proportional multi-winner ranked voting methods -<br>
guidelines? (Armando)<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Sun, 21 May 2017 20:10:09 -0600<br>
From: Armando <<a href="mailto:pitocco.ma@anche.no" target="_blank">pitocco.ma@anche.no</a>><br>
To: <a href="mailto:election-methods@lists.electorama.com" target="_blank">election-methods@lists.electorama.com</a><br>
Subject: [EM] Resume: Proportional multi-winner ranked voting methods<br>
- guidelines?<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:9E82038C-45B7-4BBF-88D8-73D2F0756D3C@anche.no" target="_blank">9E82038C-45B7-4BBF-88D8-73D2F0756D3C@anche.no</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8<br>
<br>
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.<br>
In these months I continued discussing about these themes in my organization.<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Meanwhile I?ll be thankful for any advice of further readings if you have.<br>
Best regards,<br>
Armando Pitocco<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<p><br>
</p>
</span></font></div>
</div>
</div>
----<br>
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="http://electorama.com/em" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://electorama.com/em</a> for list info<br>
</blockquote></div></div><div dir="ltr">-- <br></div><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Sent from my iPhone apologies for spelling and brevity</div>