STV-Proxy?

[DEMOREP1 at aol.com]

Mr. Eppley wrote:
This variation of Proxy PR is attractive, if there's a good reason
to limit the body to a specific N seats.  (With the rise of the
internet, making telecommuting virtual legislatures possible, a
fixed N is suspect.)

One of the traits of Proxy PR which may not have been mentioned is
that what most of the proxies would lack in weight, they'd partially
make up for in numbers.  If 10% of the proxies have 51% of the weight,
the other 90% will have loud voices which will be hard for the media
to ignore, misrepresent, and marginalize.

But a question: would it be a good idea to cap the weight a single
proxy might wield, in order to distribute power (i.e., checks and
balances)?  Without a cap, an extremely popular candidate, possibly
a demagogue, might win an extraordinary amount of legislative power.

Votes in excess of the cap would be transferred (fractionally, 
randomly, whatever) to other candidates as in STV.

If capping is a good idea, what would be a good %?
-----
D- My proposal is to be used until the unlikely day occurs when there is
direct continous lawmaking by the voters via the internet (with absolute
security to prevent double voting).
In the meantime, I suggest that there be districts with 5 members per
district with at least 2 districts.  The 5 and 2 are arbitrary but enough to
give leftwing, rightwing and other factions some representation in every
district.  The general question is what is a practical range for the size of
legislative bodies, such as 25 to 100 ?