Regions would have representatives based on the number of prides in the region. Regions with more members would have more positions in the Global Advisory Council. So regions with a limited number of prides can have two, bigger can have three and the largest regions will have four representatives on the Global Advisory Council.
The more prides there are that are member of InterPride in one region, the more influence they should have in the Global Advisory Council.
Growing the membership will allow regions to increase their influence.
The more prides and regional directors there are in a region, the more important is it to distribute the workload.
A small region like Caribbean or regions with hostile environments are not likely to grow the membership easy and will therefor be more limited in being able to make the voice heard.
The bigger a region and the more prides involved, the more divers the opinions in a region can be. These differences can be owned by the representatives if there are enough representatives involved.
Larger prides/more developed countries should not have more representation. There should be an effort to maintain a balance of influence and power.
This is the typical dilemma of representative democracy. And the solution is usually to have two chambers: a lower chamber (oftentimes called an "assembly," or "house") where representation is proportional to population (here: number of prides in the region), and a higher chamber ("senate") where representation is "flat" / non-proportional. We could imagine a hybrid solution where GAC membership is proportional but leadership is flat with veto.
This content is created by the open source Your Priorities citizen engagement platform designed by the non profit Citizens Foundation