[EM] Re: Condorcet elimination PR

[Dgamble997 at aol.com]

Hi Chris, James A-G and everybody else

The example:

300 votes
3 seats
Droop quota = 75

74: A, B, C, D, E
39: B, A, C, D, E
75: C
39: D, E, C, B, A
73: E, D, C, B, A
    
seems to be attracting a lot of comment from various people. 

Under Newland-Britton counting A,C,D or B,C,E are elected depending on 
whether B or D is eliminated first.

Under Sequential STV (Newland-Britton)  BCD is elected.

Under CPO-STV (Newland-Britton) 

ACE beats BCD beats ACD/BCE beats ACE ( a Condorcet loop ).

Under Meek style counting ACE are elected by both normal Meek and Sequential 
STV ( Meek counting) BUT the only reason for this is that C voters have 
expressed only a first preference and therefore upon transfer of  C votes the quota 
is reduced due to non-transferrablity. If further preferences had been 
expressed by C voters ( I give a reasonable set below ) Sequential STV ( Meek) would 
also have given the result BCD.

74 ABCDE
39 BACDE
38 CBADE
37 CDEBA
39 DECBA
73 EDCBA

So what point am I trying to make ? Basically so far Condorcet elimination PR 
has not been proved worse than Sequential STV. 

Could anybody provide a full preference set example in which Condorcet 
elimination PR and sequential STV provide a different result?

David Gamble

    

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20030802/4bcb400b/attachment-0003.htm>