Re: [EM] triple falsehood of identifying IRV with Hare
Richard, We know that, historically, Hare was not the first to come up with the idea of the Single Transferable Vote. Perhaps Andreas or Condorcet preceded Hare, with that idea. But Hare is mostly identified with and mostly credited with the idea and, I think, named it. This gave the idea legs, which first led to its adoption in Robert's Rules. I think that's accurate. Hare, being a barrister, gave the idea of STV a legal footing that didn't really exist previously. But the application envisioned was for multi-winner elections, to promote proportionality.We know that it was Ware, an MIT prof, that first came up the idea of applying the STV methodology to single-winner elections, essentially what we call IRV.I just think that the contribution of Hare was more significant and that it's reasonable to associate Hare's name with IRV to differentiate that method of Ranked-Choice Voting from other methods, namely Condorcet, Borda, Bucklin.I think calling IRV "Hare RCV" is an ap
propriate semantic to identify the common method of RCV and to differentiate it from Condorcet RCV, Borda RCV, and Bucklin RCV. Within these four named classes, each have variants. That's when we can get more specific like with "Top-two runoff" for Hare or "Ranked Pairs" for Condorcet.But I also identify with you about a frustration regarding the common use of terms. I am particularly disappointed that the label "RCV" has been co-opted by FairVote and allies to mean "IRV" when the latter term lost cachet in the U.S. approximately a decade ago. That is particularly dishonest.RobertPowered by Cricket Wireless------ Original message------From: Richard LungDate: Thu, Apr 18, 2024 11:08To: EM;Cc: Subject:[EM] triple falsehood of identifying IRV with HareThe 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
It’s interesting to note that some groups affiliated with FairVote prefer
“IRV” to “RCV.” These tend to be groups in Republican states like South
Carolina. Certainly don’t disagree that overall FV has co-opted the term,
but it’s interesting to see where it hasn’t caught on.
On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 7:45 PM robert bristow-johnson <
rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
Richard,
We know that, historically, Hare was not the first to come up with the
idea of the Single Transferable Vote. Perhaps Andreas or Condorcet
preceded Hare, with that idea. But Hare is mostly identified with and
mostly credited with the idea and, I think, named it. This gave the idea
legs, which first led to its adoption in Robert's Rules. I think that's
accurate. Hare, being a barrister, gave the idea of STV a legal footing
that didn't really exist previously. But the application envisioned was
for multi-winner elections, to promote proportionality.
We know that it was Ware, an MIT prof, that first came up the idea of
applying the STV methodology to single-winner elections, essentially what
we call IRV.
I just think that th e contribution of Hare was more significant and that
it's reasonable to associate Hare's name with IRV to differentiate that
method of Ranked-Choice Voting from other methods, namely Condorcet, Borda,
Bucklin.
I think calling IRV "Hare RCV" is an appropriate semantic to identify the
common method of RCV and to differentiate it from Condorcet RCV, Borda RCV,
and Bucklin RCV. Within these four named classes, each have variants.
That's when we can get more specific like with "Top-two runoff" for Hare or
"Ranked Pairs" for Condorcet.
But I also identify with you about a frustration regarding the common use
of terms. I am particularly disappointed that the label "RCV" has been
co-opted by FairVote and allies to mean "IRV" when the latter term lost
cachet in the U.S. approximately a decade ago. That is particularly
dishonest.
Robert
Powered by Cricket Wireless
------ Original message------
*From: *Richard Lung
*Date: *Thu, Apr 18, 2024 11:08
*To: *EM;
*Cc: *
Subject:[EM] triple falsehood of identifying IRV with Hare
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
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
info
Thank you, Robert,
Mathematician Carl Andrae invented a similar system a few years earlier
than Hare.
Yes, I think the term Single transferable vote comes from Hare. The
British Columbia Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform liked he system
but not the term. Likewise, Joe Rogaly in Parliament for the People, who
thought STV should be called the Supervote. This to some extent caught
on: supervote.org.uk
Well, whoever thought he was applying STV methodology to single-winner
elections was really missing the point that traditional STV cannot be
applied to single member systems. Because a proportional election (Hare
STV) is not comparable to an elimination count (IRV).
(It is possible to make STV work in single member elections. That does
not make them significantly more democratic (in their single member
strait jackets) but it does show STV can be made a more consistent
system. (That is the work I have done.)
Rank the Vote has a name for STV/PR. They call it proportional RCV,
reserving just RCV for IRV. This is consistent as far as it goes. But
STV already has a muddle of different names being added to it.
Cumulative voting has given way to "approval" voting, for that matter. I
don't know it's any worse than changing IRV to RCV, tho, for all I know,
it may have had tactical motives.
I don't think it's alright to identify Hare with IRV or any other single
member variant. Hare is definively an at-large system. To identify his
name with the opposite is a flat contradiction to what he stood for, not
to mention the other differences.
Regards,
Richard Lung.
On 18/04/2024 18:45, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
Richard,
We know that, historically, Hare was not the first to come up with the
idea of the Single Transferable Vote. Perhaps Andreas or Condorcet
preceded Hare, with that idea. But Hare is mostly identified with and
mostly credited with the idea and, I think, named it. This gave the
idea legs, which first led to its adoption in Robert's Rules. I think
that's accurate. Hare, being a barrister, gave the idea of STV a
legal footing that didn't really exist previously. But the application
envisioned was for multi-winner elections, to promote proportionality.
We know that it was Ware, an MIT prof, that first came up the idea of
applying the STV methodology to single-winner elections, essentially
what we call IRV.
I just think that th e contribution of Hare was more significant and
that it's reasonable to associate Hare's name with IRV to
differentiate that method of Ranked-Choice Voting from other methods,
namely Condorcet, Borda, Bucklin.
I think calling IRV "Hare RCV" is an appropriate semantic to identify
the common method of RCV and to differentiate it from Condorcet RCV,
Borda RCV, and Bucklin RCV. Within these four named classes, each
have variants. That's when we can get more specific like with "Top-two
runoff" for Hare or "Ranked Pairs" for Condorcet.
But I also identify with you about a frustration regarding the common
use of terms. I am particularly disappointed that the label "RCV" has
been co-opted by FairVote and allies to mean "IRV" when the latter
term lost cachet in the U.S. approximately a decade ago. That is
particularly dishonest.
Robert
/Powered by Cricket Wireless/
------ Original message------
*From: *Richard Lung
*Date: *Thu, Apr 18, 2024 11:08
*To: *EM;
*Cc: *
Subject:[EM] triple falsehood of identifying IRV with Hare
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 - seehttps://electorama.com/em for list info
Election-Methods mailing list - seehttps://electorama.com/em for list info