... to be continued
Let me guess: Your next article is going to mainly be about place voting, right?
Which are likely to be most politically viable
Before you just assume that PLACE voting is actually the most politically viable multi-winner voting method, perhaps you should conduct a poll to see what voters actually think about the method as well as what voters actually think about other multi-winner voting methods. You might also want to poll voters on how much they like the idea of delegated voting in general. And if voters are skeptical of delegated voting methods, are their skeptical opinions about such voting methods justified? Do delegated voting methods maintain the same level of political accountability as other proportional voting methods? Can slimy politician A delegate their votes to slimy politician B whom A (and A's donors) know will vote differently on many issues then they will, and then pretend to be surprised when slimy politician B does vote differently then they will and deceive his base about the issues he cares about with this acting? Because it takes far more work to learn about all of A's policy positions then all of the political "veiws" of every person A has delegated his votes to, will there be as much as a backlash among A's supporters when the people he has delegated his vote to vote against his "veiws" then when A himself votes against them. Can delegated voting lead to bribery where politicians make secret deals to delegate their left over votes to somebody else in exchange for campaign contributions? It is questions like these that make me (and will probably make many others) very skeptical of delegated voting methods. They are still far and away better then the status quo, but I don't believe that delegated voting methods such as PLACE are the best way to advocate for PR.