[EM] STV-CLE

[Dan Bishop]

James Green-Armytage wrote:
> 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.

Good point.

Well, what if instead of eliminating the overall Condorcet loser, we 
eliminated the Condorcet loser *of the excess votes*?

That is, once A and B had their 25 votes, the elimination would be based on:

16: C>E>D
14: D>E>C
20: E>C>D

and D, being the Condorcet loser of this, would get eliminated, causing 
E to meet quota.  This would produce the same result as STV and CPO-STV.