[EM] triple falsehood of identifying IRV with Hare

[Richard Lung]

Chris,

What plenty of people are "happy" to call a thing (if that is the case) 
is not an argument. (It is perhaps a symptom of rigid habitual adherence 
to the half-democratic single member system.)

Indeed, STV has many names, not all of them felicitous, but not so 
downright wrong.

Dear chap, the Droop quota is not an "improvement" on the Hare quota. 
One represents the minimum PR, the other the maximum PR. Droop may not 
win by statistically significant margins. Hare may require deferential 
voters for its quota to be filled at all.

Yes traditional STV has a residual elimination count but that becomes 
less and less important with at-large elections, Hare advocated.  
Comparing IRV with STV or Hare, on that basis, is like classifying dogs 
by their tails.

Also, it is possible to use reformed STV without an elimination count. 
That is not the nearly two centuries old Hare system, but even then he 
had practically eliminated the importance of an elimination count in his 
system, by at-large constituencies.

Thank you for your reply.

Regards,

Richard Lung.


On 18/04/2024 19:35, Chris Benham wrote:
>
>
> Richard,
>
> Plenty of places on the net are happy to call single-winner STV the 
> "Hare system".
>
> One example:
> https://assembly.cornell.edu/elections/hare-system-ranked-choice-voting
>
> Multi-winner STV is  often referred to as the "Hare-Clark" system. It 
> uses the Droop
> quota, an improvement on the Hare quota.
>
> A "majority" is basically a single-winner Droop quota.
>
> Multi-winner STV also eliminates candidates. To claim that 
> single-winner STV and multi-winner
> STV work in "opposite", "not in any way similar" ways is absurd.
>
> Chris
>
>> The Hare system is defined as at-large STV/PR like the city elections in
>> Cambridge USA.
>>
>> In three basic ways, it is the opposite of IRV, not in any way similar.
>>
>> Firstly Hare system is a proportional count; IRV is a majority count.
>>
>> Secondly, Hare uses at large constituencies. He advocated the exact
>> opposite to the Anglo-American single member system or a singlre member
>> system like IRV. He proposed one large multi-member system.
>>
>> Thirdly, any similarity between the preference vote or ranked choice
>> vote used by Hare and that used by IRV is contradicted by the opposite
>> ways in which they are used. Hare system was an election of quotas (the
>> Hare quota) in the order that the electorate chose them.
>>
>> The IRV ranked choice is no such thing. IRV uses an opposite sort of
>> count, not a proportional count but an elimination count. Hare ranked
>> choice is a positive choice of candidates in the voters prefered order,
>> reaching the equal threshold of the quota.
>>
>> IRV gives the voters no control of the order in which the candidates are
>> elected. It merely eliminates candidates on a last past the post basis,
>> to manufacture a mere majority.
>>
>> In sum, identifying IRV with Hare is a triple falsification of a
>> fundamental nature.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Richard Lung.
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20240418/b24bc8aa/attachment-0001.htm>