[EM] Droop fails the Markus Schulze Rule????? [2]

[Tom Round]

In other words, Donald seems to be saying (a) The Hare quota allows to to
produce a result where no ballot is  wasted (but only if we transfer the
last runner-up's ballots to the next-preferred candidate remaining and deem
them to be real preferences for the latter), but (b)  Under the Droop quota,
almost a full quota of votes may be wasted (because it would be some kind of
"fraud" to transfer the last runner-up's ballots to the next-preferred
candidate remaining and deem them to be real preferences for the latter).

Sorry, but Rule No #1 of comparing electoral methods must be that we judge
them both by the same yardstick. "Sauce forthe goose ..." and all that. So
if it's legitimate to perform this operation under the Hare quota,
re-allocating all losers' votes among the winners (assuming, as Donald
suggests, that no votes exhaust), then it's also legitimate to do it under
the Droop quota -- and under _both_ methods it will also "prove" that there
are no more wasted votes. Saying "we can't make sure every vote elects
someone under Droop because Droop is a fraud from the very beginning" is a
circular logic if one is arguing that "Droop is a fraud from the very
beginning because under Droop we can't make sure every vote elects someone".

(PS: I personally think the best measure of wasted votes is to continue
elimination until only one more candidate remains than the number of
positions. We can then meaningfully compare support for the five winners
with support for the last runner-up. Translated  to a single-seat system,
this becomes the "two-party-preferred" count so often cited in Australia,
although the term is inaccurate in cases when an Independent or minor-party
candidate wins or comes second, and is harder to  apply to a multi-member
result. "Final-count preferred" is  the term I think they use in Ireland.)

Rule No #2, specifically in relation to proportional systems, is to
recognise that votes can be "wasted" as much on elected as on defeated
candidates. Otherwise, if only losers' votes counted as "wasted", it'd make
PR systems inferior to those like the former Japanese Single
NON-Transferable Vote, where if six candidates divide the votes 40%, 30%,
20%, 5%, 4% and 1%, we elect the five highest and congratulate ourselves
that a mere 1% of the votes were wasted. Of course a lot more than that were
wasted, ifthe first one elected has 40% when s/he needs only 16.67% (under
Droop) or 20% (under Hare) to be elected and the extra 23.33% or 20% should
be transferred (in which case they may well help Mr/Ms 1% defeat Mr/Ms 4% or
5%).

>Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 20:07:00 -0400
>To: "[EM]" <election-methods-list at eskimo.com>
>From: donald at mich.com (Donald E Davison)
>Subject: [EM] Droop fails the Markus Schulze Rule

[... snip ...]

>     It is best to use Ideal Conditions when we compare the two. Ideal
>Conditions are when there are enough informed choices made by the voters so
>that no ballot becomes exhausted.
>     This may never happen in a real election, but it is mathematically
>possible.
>
>     Anyway, the Hare STV election will not have any wasted votes. Every
>ballot will end up on one or another of the winning candidates. Each
>elected member will have received the same number of votes - an equal part
>of the total votes.
>     The Droop STV election will not fare as well. The Droop will produce
>one quota of wasted ballots.
>
>        <B> Droop fails the Markus Schulze Rule. </B>
>
>     Also, while the elected members will all have the same number of
>votes, the amount will not be an equal part of the total votes.
>     Now, I am not suggesting that the last Droop quota be transferred - no
>way am I saying that.
>     I am saying that the Droop is a fraud and should be discarded before
>we even start the count. [... snip ...]