[EM] Mr Hare's system

Richard Lung voting at ukscientists.com
Tue Apr 20 12:22:47 PDT 2021

Dear All, 

Hare STV should always be At-large STV. It is a contradiction in terms to talk of single-winners, in terms of the Hare system. Cambridge is a 9 member at-large election but uses the Droop quota, rather than the Hare quota. At that district magnitude, it makes little difference.

Besides editing Mill, I also produced a booklet commemorating the Hill electoral dynasty. I didn't publish free at Smashwords, because they stopped public domain issues. I published at Amazon, Meek Method Code of Dr David Hill. I am not a coder, but the code is just text, not executable. It was the basis for the worlds first use of Meek method, in New Zealand.
David Hill invented a Condorcet-amended STV. Sequential STV, I think. It is still non-monotonic.
In that booklet, I also commemorated the bicentenary of Thomas Wright Hill, his ancestor, using the first known example of a protoSTV system at his club.
It is not seriously claimed that Wright Hill sketch compares with the Thomas Hare blueprint. 

The reason I know of, that Condorcet didn't catch on, was that Laplace favored Borda, because different orders of preference should have different weights. Weighting was eventually introduced to Condorcet pairing. Long before that, Gregory weighted the transferable vote. This has Later-no-harm, unlike Borda method.

Traditional STV is non-monotonic, because in principle helping a candidate by re-allocating preferences can have an adverse effect. This comes from the ad hoc nature of excluding candidates, when the surpluses run out.
This is not a problem with my method of FAB STV, which uses an exclusion count symmetric with a (monotonic) election count.

Richard Lung.

On 20 Apr 2021, at 2:09 am, robert bristow-johnson <rbj at audioimagination.com> wrote:

> On 04/19/2021 6:35 PM Bob Richard [lists] <lists001 at robertjrichard.com> wrote:
> Robert Bristow-Johnson asks
> How is it different? Other than multi-winner and the Hare threshold instead of Droop.
> By "antithesis" I assume that Richard Lung meant majoritarian as opposed to proportional.
> IRV (single-winner STV) uses a Droop quota, not a Hare quota. In a single-winner election, a Droop quota [1/(S+1)] is a majority. A Hare quota [1/S] would mean that complete unanimity is required for any candidate to get elected.

I do know that about IRV and that the Hare threshold was too high for single-winner.  The thing that I think is the defining idea was the notion of the Single Transferable Vote and the elimination of the bottom candidate each round.  It seems to me that the basic mechanism is essentially the same whether you stop at a single winner or earlier with more than one.

Wikipedia tells me that it wasn't Hare but Thomas Wright Hill that was the first to propose the STV.  And I know that Ware is credited specifically for the proposal to use STV for a single-winner race.  But it seems like this was all he contributed and I just think it's historically better to ascribe the STV idea to Hare or, now I read, Hill.


r b-j rbj at audioimagination.com 

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list