Dan,
The CLE-STV idea is not consistent with the basic spirit of proportional
representation.
A simple example:
3 seats to be filled, 100 voters, Newland-Britton quota is 25.
50: A>B>C>D>E
16: C>E>D>A>B
14: D>E>C>A>B
20: E>C>D>A>B
STV and CPO-STV choose {A, B, E}, but CLE-STV eliminates E and chooses
{A, B, C}. The problem with CLE-STV is that even though the 50 A>B>C>D>E
voters have their votes fully invested in the quotas of A and B, they are
still having an influence on which candidate is eliminated.
CLE-STV is an uncomfortable marriage of proportional representation and
majority rule. If you want a proportional method that combines the
Condorcet and STV principles more happily, I recommend CPO-STV.
my best,
James
P.S. I define CPO-STV and the Newland-Britton quota at
http://fc.antioch.edu/~james_green-armytage/vm/survey.htm
Dan Bishop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>I've made passing mention of my STV-CLE method (the CLE stands for
>Condorcet Loser Elimination) a couple of times, but the recent
>"Proportional Condorcet Voting" thread encouraged me to finally give it
>a decent introduction.
>
>Essentially, STV-CLE is just like STV, except that instead of
>eliminating the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes, you
>eliminate the Condorcet (completion) loser.
----
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
