[EM] Why the Droop Quota is wrong

[Donald E Davison]

Greetings,

     I would like to add to this Droop discussion by saying what is exactly
wrong with the Droop Quota.

     When we have a candidate with a surplus of votes, most of that surplus
will be transferred to a second candidate of the same party.
     Now, if some creative mathematics can be used to increase the amount
of surplus, then the second candidate will be helped with an additional
number of votes. These extra votes can make the difference between winning
and losing for the second candidate, of the same party of the first
candidate.
     The Droop Quota is this creative mathematics that will increase the
surplus by lowering the quota. The larger parties who have candidates in
the quota area will reap the benefit of this increased surplus. These extra
votes may elect an extra member for the largest party.
     In a STV election there may be a number of candidates that have about
the same number of votes, but the run-off chase comes down to which
candidate is to be eliminated next. If a candidate receives an extra lump
of votes, that can move him ahead of others, and one of the others is
eliminated next - not him. It is as if a bear is chasing the candidates. A
candidate does not need to run faster than the bear, he only needs to run
faster than a few of the other candidates. The Droop Quota will help
candidates to run faster, but only the candidates that receive the most
surplus, and those will be the candidates of the large parties.

   The purpose of the Droop Quota is to give the larger factions an extra edge.
   It looks like corruption - it smells like corruption - it must be corruption.

    The larger parties want the Droop Quota, and being as the larger
parties together make up a majority of the voters, it is understandable if
the Droop Quota is installed as a feature in most STVs. But corruption is
still corruption, even if it is voted in by the majority.

Donald