[EM] triple falsehood of identifying IRV with Hare

[Michael Garman]

>> What plenty of people are "happy" to call a thing (if that is the case)
is not an argument.

Oh, but it is. Language is what we make it.

On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 9:15 PM Richard Lung <voting at ukscientists.com>
wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
> info
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20240418/c85abbcb/attachment.htm>