[EM] Cumulative Voting w/ elimination

[DEMOREP1 at aol.com]

Who needs cumulative voting when a simple proxy p.r. method (below) exists 
???---
Sec. xx. (a) An Elector may vote for 1 or more legislative candidates on the 
ballots in a district (plus not more than [2] write-in votes) by voting “1”, 
“2” and so forth for his or her first, second and so forth choices. (b) If 
there are more than [5] candidates (or remaining candidates) in the district, 
then the candidate having the lowest number of votes shall be a losing 
candidate. (c) Each vote for a losing candidate shall be transferred to the 
Elector's next choice (if any) who is a remaining candidate in the district. 
(d) The 2 prior steps shall be repeated until there are [5] remaining 
candidates in the district who shall be elected. (e) A lottery shall be held 
if tie votes occur in any step. (f) Each member of a legislative body (or his 
or her replacement) shall have a voting power in the legislative body and its 
committees, in person or by written proxy, equal to the votes that the member 
finally receives in the Election. (g) Example-
C = Candidates          Voting Power
C1  21          = 21 +   1   = 22
C2  20          = 20 +   5   = 25
C3  15          = 15 +   3   = 18
C4  12 + 5    = 17           = 17
C5  12 + 1    = 13 - 13   =   0
C6  11 + 3    = 14 +   2   = 16
C7   9  - 9     =   0          =   0
VNT 0            =   0 +   2  =   2
    100            100           100
   C7 Loses   C5 Loses
VNT= Votes not transferred

I suggest a 5 factions limit in districts to reduce the number of single 
issue parties (which causes all sorts of anti-p.r. freaks to come out of the 
woodwork who continuously bring up Italy and Israel as bad p.r. examples).

I mention again that head to head comparisons also technically applies to 
multi-member legislative body elections but a computer would most likely be 
needed to do all of the comparisons for all but very small elections.  The 
above would likely be about 95 + percent accurate (compared to head to head).