# [EM] Layton Craig is sorry:

I Like Irving donald at mich.com
Mon Mar 5 04:50:46 PST 2001

```- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 03/05/01
Layton wrote:  I'm sorry - Hare Quota?

Don:  You should be sorry - writing such a poor letter, don't let it happen
again.

If we are to compare Hare and Droop, we must compare them to
proportionality.  The correct quota would be the quota that yielded the
best proportionality.
Proportional representation is defined as:  A percentage of the
voters shall elect the same percentage of the members.  Or, each member is
to be elected by a proportional share of the whole.  I use this defination
to determine which quota is more proportional.
I'm going to take a turn at running thru your example.  My standard
will be: One of three seats is proportional to one third of the voters.

Layton wrote:  eg; 200 voters, 3 candidates to be elected
(x stands for "the rest of the field");
69 A>B>C
69 D>B>C
29 B>x>C
33 C>x       The Hare quota is 68 (Droop Quota 51).

Don:  You are in error.  The Hare quota is 67.  Do not add one to a Hare
quota, that is done in the Droop quota.

Layton wrote:  A and D get the [67] quota, their [surplus] votes [4] are
redistributed at fractional transfer values

Don:  No need to use fractional transfer, we are only transferring four
whole votes and the next choices are all the same candidate B.

Layton wrote: - B now has 31 and C has 33.

Don:  Again you are in error.  B now has 33, 29 B>x>C and 4 B>C.  We have a
tie. We now look to the next choices of these two candidates and we get
zero for B and four for C, B is the lowest and is eliminated. C wins third
seat with 66, a near quota.
So, what's the problem?  Each candidate was elected by a very near
one third of the vote, that's proportionality.
If the Droop quota were used each elected member would be elected by
only 25 % of the voters. Not as proportional as the Hare quota.  Hare must
be the correct quota to use. The Droop quota is a corruption of
proportionality.

Layton writes:  The C voters have secured one third of the seats in the
legislature, even though 83.5% of the voters ranked C dead last.

Don: Again you are in error, are you going to make a habit of this?
C is not last, B is last.  85.5 % of the voters ranked B dead last.
But of more importance is that you are giving yourself away with this
statement of yours. You do not seem to understand the difference between a
majority election and a proportional election.  This is a proportional
election we are talking about and it makes no difference if a majority of
voters rate a candidate last.  What counts is if the candidate receives a
proportional part of the votes, if so, then the candidate is elected
regardless of what the rest of the voters think.

Layton wrote:  If it was a highest average count, and A,B,D had joined
together as a single party, then ABD would get elected in a d'hondt count,
as well as saint lague (specifically designed to help smaller parties) and
modified saint lague.

Don:  Have you now changed the discussion to party list?  If so, that is a
different method and it can produce different results.
If you are implying that party list is the standard we should use to
judge STV Hare/Droop, I should like to point out to you that the party
quota per seat that party list uses is the same as Hare.
Party list does not use a Droop quota.

Layton wrote:  Hare is the absolute worst way to distribute seats

Don:  Again you are in error, but glad to see you are back talking about
STV even if you are making a habit of being in error.
You are only saying that because you live in a country that uses the
Droop quota.  Anything your own country uses must be the best.  You
shouldn't allow nationalism to cloud your judgement.

Layton wrote: (and there are much worse examples with more candidates).

Don:  Of Course!  There is no limit to the number of unrealistic examples
that are concocted on this list.
In a real election, never will all the voters of a candidate pick the
same second and third choices.  In the real world the A voters will pick a
mix of second choices and a different mix of third choices.  But this list
is above reality, way up in the sky above reality.

Layton wrote:  You seem to be determined to sabotage the only decent

Don:  Again you are in error, twice this time.  Once, in that I am not
determined to sabotage STV.  I merely wish to take the corruption out of
STV and make it a Pure STV and a decent electoral system again.
In other word: "Clean up your act."
And your second error is the word `only'.  I also advocate another
decent electoral system, have you heard of Irving (IRV)?  Now there's a
great election system.

"We are not pleased with you Layton Craig, we don't see any
improvement, you do need to try harder."  Queen Victoria

Ha Ha to you,
Donald Davison,

```