# [EM] Layton Craig is sorry:

David Catchpole s349436 at student.uq.edu.au
Mon Mar 5 13:05:49 PST 2001

```Both yield equal proportionality - Droop yields the better degree of
_fairness_ and strategy-proofness because Droop is the natural quota even
given a Hare quota. In a Hare quota election, aggregations of candidates
should strive for a Droop quota for each of their members if they know
what's good for them. A candidate with a Droop quota in such an election
will win. Any more votes are wasted.

Perhaps the key difference in "proportionality" between a Hare election
and a Droop election is who gets elected last. In Hare, it's whoever makes what
I call the "arsend" quota of 1/2n. In Droop, it's someone just the same as
everyone else elected, with a Droop quota. A Droop election "wastes"
1/(n+1) of the vote. A Hare election wastes (n-1)((1/n)-(1/n+1))+1/2n ...
big!

There have been previous discussions on the issue and some of them might
be very enlightening.

On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, I Like Irving wrote:

> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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,
>
>
>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You have the right to scream your head off. Should you give up the right