[EM] Droop's role in electing `Most Preferred Candidates'

[Donald E Davison]

Greetings,                              11/17/99

     On 11/10/99, Richard Lung wrote about the role of the Droop quota in
electing the `Most Preferred Candidates' in a Single Transferrable
Vote(STV) election.
     Richard is a supporter of the Droop quota policy, but we must thank
him for his honesty and candor, because Richard `tells it the way it is'.
     The only thing that remains is for you, the reader, to fully
understand what he is saying. Fear not, I will translate.

Richard: To understand why the Droop quota is particularly suitable as the
quota count of the single transferable vote, you have to appreciate the
overall purpose of the system. This is to elect the most prefered
candidates or the popular choice. The Droop quota is the quota calculated
to best achieve this.

Donald: Translation: The term `Most Preferred Candidates' means the
candidates of the group with the most voters - the candidates of the
largest party.

Richard: So, the Droop quota is just high enough to ensure the most
prefered candidates are elected. And making the quota higher than Droop -
more like the Hare quota - does not help elect the most prefered, either.

Donald: A natural flaw of STV is that there is a lower number of votes than
a full Hare quota, at which a candidate will still be ensured of being
elected. A group might instruct their supporters how to vote in order to
lower the vote count on their leading candidates, down near to this lower
value. This action, if successful, will free up votes that can be used to
help other candidates of the group.
     But, the best way to do this is to install into the election system
the policy of using the Droop quota, which is calculated to be that exact
value - that lowest amount of votes that will still ensure the election of
the candidate. The installation of the Droop rule into STV does the work
for the group. The votes of the leading candidates are now lowered to that
key value with mathematical precision.

Richard: That is because the most popular candidates build up surpluses of
votes, over what they need to be sure of election. The higher the quota
than Droop, the more these votes would be wasted.

Donald: The use of the word `wasted' is debatable for these votes between
Droop and Hare. It all depends on which side of the line of honesty a
person is standing.
     If a shopkeeper were to give Richard less change than what he was
entitled to, the shopkeeper might regard giving full change a `waste' of
money. But Richard may feel that he has been shortchanged. It's a question
of viewpoint.
     STV needs full quotas of the total final votes in order to be
proportional. Anything that causes less than a full quota is shortchanging
the method. The votes between Droop and Hare are not wasted, they are
needed for the system to work. Droop shortchanges the system.
     But, of more importance, is what Richard has written that revels the
real reason for the use of the Droop quota, which Richard will now tell us.


Richard: And, [if a higher quota than Droop is used], instead of the second
preferences of voters for the most popular candidates helping choose who
comes next, the second preferences of least popular and eliminated
candidates intervene - what Churchill called 'the worst votes for the worst
candidates'.
     Only a few votes difference between the two candidates with least
votes can make a disproportionate difference to the election, depending on
whose second preferences get re-distributed.
     Using the Droop quota to maximise the transfer of otherwise wasted
surplus votes helps to minimise the caprice of redistributed votes from
candidates furthest from the elective proportion or quota of votes needed.

Donald: Do you understand?  There is a message for you in Richard's words.
        His message is that we should not want the next elected member to
be decided by the transferred votes from the smaller groups. Instead we
should approve of using Droop to free up votes that will be transferred to
only `Most Preferred Candidates', who are the lower choices of other `Most
Preferred Candidates', who are all candidates of the most voters - of the
largest party.
     But, this must be done before any votes of the lowest eliminated
candidates are transferred to any of the `worst candidates'. It would not
do for any of the `worst candidates' to get ahead of any `Most Preferred
Candidates'. Help to do this comes from another rule of STV.
     In the event you do not know, another rule in STV is that the surplus
votes are to be transferred before the votes of the eliminated candidates
are transferred. The votes between the Droop and Hare are declared to be
surplus and transferred to the `Most Preferred Candidates' of the largest
party, first, before any votes of the `worst voters' are transferred to any
of the `worst candidates'.
     Timing is everything - it is very important. When the run-off routine
of eliminating candidates begins, it is like all the remaining candidates
are being chased by a Big Bear. You cannot run faster than the bear, but
you do not need to run faster than the bear, you only need to run ahead of
a few of the other candidates. And if you have received some of these so
called surplus votes, then that may very well put you a few steps ahead of
a few of the other candidates - that's all you need to stay in the race and
maybe win a seat.
     Being eliminated is like being caught by the bear - it's all over but
the shouting.

     The real reason for the Droop Quota is to take some representation
from the smallest groups and give that representation to the largest group.
Richard has said as much.
     Thank you Richard, I do not share your Droop beliefs, but you are a
breath of fresh air. We do not meet many supporters of the Droop who are
both knowledgeable about Droop and willing to tell its truths. (Are you
listening, David)
     There is one other person I know of. He supports Droop because he
feels that it would be necessary to give something to the large parties in
order to get them to come on board for election reform. Sort of like,
tossing a bone to the dogs. He is being honest, practical, and realistic.
After all, better to have election reform with Droop than no election
reform at all.

Regards,
Donald


   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
   |                         Q U O T A T I O N                         |
   |  "Democracy is a beautiful thing,                                 |
   |       except that part about letting just any old yokel vote."    |
   |                            - Age 10                               |
   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

                            N E W S L E T T E R

                    Worldwide Direct Democracy Newsletter
                     Four Issues per Year by Postal Mail
             Cost per year: Czech Republic 200 Kc,  Europe 12 DM
                          Outside of Europe  $10

              Make check payable to: Mr. Bohuslav Binka
              Mail to:  Mr. Bohuslav Binka
                        Bellova 15
                        Brno 623 00
                        Czech Republic
          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                         N E W    D E M O C R A C Y
              A Source of Study Material for Political Change

                        http://www.mich.com/~donald
          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -