triple falsehood of identifying IRV with Hare
Richard,
Plenty of places on the net are happy to call single-winner STV the
"Hare system".
One example:
https://assembly.cornell.edu/elections/hare-system-ranked-choice-voting
Multi-winner STV is often referred to as the "Hare-Clark" system. It
uses the Droop
quota, an improvement on the Hare quota.
A "majority" is basically a single-winner Droop quota.
Multi-winner STV also eliminates candidates. To claim that single-winner
STV and multi-winner
STV work in "opposite", "not in any way similar" ways is absurd.
Chris
The Hare system is defined as at-large STV/PR like the city elections in
Cambridge USA.
In three basic ways, it is the opposite of IRV, not in any way similar.
Firstly Hare system is a proportional count; IRV is a majority count.
Secondly, Hare uses at large constituencies. He advocated the exact
opposite to the Anglo-American single member system or a singlre member
system like IRV. He proposed one large multi-member system.
Thirdly, any similarity between the preference vote or ranked choice
vote used by Hare and that used by IRV is contradicted by the opposite
ways in which they are used. Hare system was an election of quotas (the
Hare quota) in the order that the electorate chose them.
The IRV ranked choice is no such thing. IRV uses an opposite sort of
count, not a proportional count but an elimination count. Hare ranked
choice is a positive choice of candidates in the voters prefered order,
reaching the equal threshold of the quota.
IRV gives the voters no control of the order in which the candidates are
elected. It merely eliminates candidates on a last past the post basis,
to manufacture a mere majority.
In sum, identifying IRV with Hare is a triple falsification of a
fundamental nature.
Regards,
Richard Lung.
Chris,
What plenty of people are "happy" to call a thing (if that is the case)
is not an argument. (It is perhaps a symptom of rigid habitual adherence
to the half-democratic single member system.)
Indeed, STV has many names, not all of them felicitous, but not so
downright wrong.
Dear chap, the Droop quota is not an "improvement" on the Hare quota.
One represents the minimum PR, the other the maximum PR. Droop may not
win by statistically significant margins. Hare may require deferential
voters for its quota to be filled at all.
Yes traditional STV has a residual elimination count but that becomes
less and less important with at-large elections, Hare advocated.
Comparing IRV with STV or Hare, on that basis, is like classifying dogs
by their tails.
Also, it is possible to use reformed STV without an elimination count.
That is not the nearly two centuries old Hare system, but even then he
had practically eliminated the importance of an elimination count in his
system, by at-large constituencies.
Thank you for your reply.
Regards,
Richard Lung.
On 18/04/2024 19:35, Chris Benham wrote:
Richard,
Plenty of places on the net are happy to call single-winner STV the
"Hare system".
One example:
https://assembly.cornell.edu/elections/hare-system-ranked-choice-voting
Multi-winner STV is often referred to as the "Hare-Clark" system. It
uses the Droop
quota, an improvement on the Hare quota.
A "majority" is basically a single-winner Droop quota.
Multi-winner STV also eliminates candidates. To claim that
single-winner STV and multi-winner
STV work in "opposite", "not in any way similar" ways is absurd.
Chris
The Hare system is defined as at-large STV/PR like the city elections in
Cambridge USA.
In three basic ways, it is the opposite of IRV, not in any way similar.
Firstly Hare system is a proportional count; IRV is a majority count.
Secondly, Hare uses at large constituencies. He advocated the exact
opposite to the Anglo-American single member system or a singlre member
system like IRV. He proposed one large multi-member system.
Thirdly, any similarity between the preference vote or ranked choice
vote used by Hare and that used by IRV is contradicted by the opposite
ways in which they are used. Hare system was an election of quotas (the
Hare quota) in the order that the electorate chose them.
The IRV ranked choice is no such thing. IRV uses an opposite sort of
count, not a proportional count but an elimination count. Hare ranked
choice is a positive choice of candidates in the voters prefered order,
reaching the equal threshold of the quota.
IRV gives the voters no control of the order in which the candidates are
elected. It merely eliminates candidates on a last past the post basis,
to manufacture a mere majority.
In sum, identifying IRV with Hare is a triple falsification of a
fundamental nature.
Regards,
Richard Lung.
What plenty of people are "happy" to call a thing (if that is the case)
is not an argument.
Oh, but it is. Language is what we make it.
On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 9:15 PM Richard Lung voting@ukscientists.com
wrote:
Chris,
What plenty of people are "happy" to call a thing (if that is the case) is
not an argument. (It is perhaps a symptom of rigid habitual adherence to
the half-democratic single member system.)
Indeed, STV has many names, not all of them felicitous, but not so
downright wrong.
Dear chap, the Droop quota is not an "improvement" on the Hare quota. One
represents the minimum PR, the other the maximum PR. Droop may not win by
statistically significant margins. Hare may require deferential voters for
its quota to be filled at all.
Yes traditional STV has a residual elimination count but that becomes less
and less important with at-large elections, Hare advocated. Comparing IRV
with STV or Hare, on that basis, is like classifying dogs by their tails.
Also, it is possible to use reformed STV without an elimination count.
That is not the nearly two centuries old Hare system, but even then he had
practically eliminated the importance of an elimination count in his
system, by at-large constituencies.
Thank you for your reply.
Regards,
Richard Lung.
On 18/04/2024 19:35, Chris Benham wrote:
Richard,
Plenty of places on the net are happy to call single-winner STV the "Hare
system".
One example:
https://assembly.cornell.edu/elections/hare-system-ranked-choice-voting
Multi-winner STV is often referred to as the "Hare-Clark" system. It uses
the Droop
quota, an improvement on the Hare quota.
A "majority" is basically a single-winner Droop quota.
Multi-winner STV also eliminates candidates. To claim that single-winner
STV and multi-winner
STV work in "opposite", "not in any way similar" ways is absurd.
Chris
The Hare system is defined as at-large STV/PR like the city elections in
Cambridge USA.
In three basic ways, it is the opposite of IRV, not in any way similar.
Firstly Hare system is a proportional count; IRV is a majority count.
Secondly, Hare uses at large constituencies. He advocated the exact
opposite to the Anglo-American single member system or a singlre member
system like IRV. He proposed one large multi-member system.
Thirdly, any similarity between the preference vote or ranked choice
vote used by Hare and that used by IRV is contradicted by the opposite
ways in which they are used. Hare system was an election of quotas (the
Hare quota) in the order that the electorate chose them.
The IRV ranked choice is no such thing. IRV uses an opposite sort of
count, not a proportional count but an elimination count. Hare ranked
choice is a positive choice of candidates in the voters prefered order,
reaching the equal threshold of the quota.
IRV gives the voters no control of the order in which the candidates are
elected. It merely eliminates candidates on a last past the post basis,
to manufacture a mere majority.
In sum, identifying IRV with Hare is a triple falsification of a
fundamental nature.
Regards,
Richard Lung.
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
info