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.