I think the issue with multi-winner primaries is not whether they are proportional, or even whether the elect clones, but whether they advance at least one winnable candidate to the general election. But I suppose a proportional system would be more likely to do so due to the "shotgun effect" of advancing dissimilar candidates-- resulting in at least one electable candidate, along with a few destined to crash and burn.
Right, this is exactly what I meant by:
> Again, none of this argues that perfect PR is needed in a primary. But > completely ignoring PR issues is a mistake, too.
To look at it another way:
> Yes, especially if this faction has the best possibility of winning the general election.So, you think it would be acceptable, even desireable, to have three candidates from a party's centermost faction enter the general election, even when the party has a broad range of viewpoints?
If this is what you want, then electing every candidate from the same faction is a BAD idea. Lots of redundancy, no robustness. That faction might be the one with the best shot in the GE, but it might not, too.
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
