<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Hi Chris, James A-G and everybody else<BR>
<BR>
The example:<BR>
<BR>
300 votes<BR>
3 seats<BR>
Droop quota = 75<BR>
<BR>
74: A, B, C, D, E<BR>
39: B, A, C, D, E<BR>
75: C<BR>
39: D, E, C, B, A<BR>
73: E, D, C, B, A<BR>
<BR>
seems to be attracting a lot of comment from various people. <BR>
<BR>
Under Newland-Britton counting A,C,D or B,C,E are elected depending on whether B or D is eliminated first.<BR>
<BR>
Under Sequential STV (Newland-Britton) BCD is elected.<BR>
<BR>
Under CPO-STV (Newland-Britton) <BR>
<BR>
ACE beats BCD beats ACD/BCE beats ACE ( a Condorcet loop ).<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
74 ABCDE<BR>
39 BACDE<BR>
38 CBADE<BR>
37 CDEBA<BR>
39 DECBA<BR>
73 EDCBA<BR>
<BR>
So what point am I trying to make ? Basically so far Condorcet elimination PR has not been proved worse than Sequential STV. <BR>
<BR>
Could anybody provide a full preference set example in which Condorcet elimination PR and sequential STV provide a different result?<BR>
<BR>
David Gamble<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>