<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Thank you, Robert,<br>
</p>
<p>Mathematician Carl Andrae invented a similar system a few years
earlier than Hare.<br>
</p>
<p>Yes, I think the term Single transferable vote comes from Hare.
The British Columbia Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform liked
he system but not the term. Likewise, Joe Rogaly in Parliament for
the People, who thought STV should be called the Supervote. This
to some extent caught on: supervote.org.uk <br>
</p>
<p>Well, whoever thought he was applying STV methodology to
single-winner elections was really missing the point that
traditional STV cannot be applied to single member systems.
Because a proportional election (Hare STV) is not comparable to an
elimination count (IRV). <br>
</p>
<p>(It is possible to make STV work in single member elections. That
does not make them significantly more democratic (in their single
member strait jackets) but it does show STV can be made a more
consistent system. (That is the work I have done.)</p>
<p>Rank the Vote has a name for STV/PR. They call it proportional
RCV, reserving just RCV for IRV. This is consistent as far as it
goes. But STV already has a muddle of different names being added
to it. Cumulative voting has given way to "approval" voting, for
that matter. I don't know it's any worse than changing IRV to RCV,
tho, for all I know, it may have had tactical motives.</p>
<p>I don't think it's alright to identify Hare with IRV or any other
single member variant. Hare is definively an at-large system. To
identify his name with the opposite is a flat contradiction to
what he stood for, not to mention the other differences. <br>
</p>
<p>Regards,</p>
<p>Richard Lung.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 18/04/2024 18:45, robert
bristow-johnson wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a74c224rh2lec7f12rj4bivm.1713460792273@email.lge.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div style="font-size: 10pt;">
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Richard, </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">We know that, historically, Hare was not the
first to come up with the idea of the Single Transferable
Vote. Perhaps Andreas or Condorcet preceded Hare, with that
idea. But Hare is mostly identified with and mostly credited
with the idea and, I think, named it. This gave the idea
legs, which first led to its adoption in Robert's Rules. I
think that's accurate. Hare, being a barrister, gave the idea
of STV a legal footing that didn't really exist previously.
But the application envisioned was for multi-winner elections,
to promote proportionality.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">We know that it was Ware, an MIT prof, that
first came up the idea of applying the STV methodology to
single-winner elections, essentially what we call IRV.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I just think that th e contribution of Hare was
more significant and that it's reasonable to associate Hare's
name with IRV to differentiate that method of Ranked-Choice
Voting from other methods, namely Condorcet, Borda, Bucklin.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I think calling IRV "Hare RCV" is an appropriate
semantic to identify the common method of RCV and to
differentiate it from Condorcet RCV, Borda RCV, and Bucklin
RCV. Within these four named classes, each have variants.
That's when we can get more specific like with "Top-two
runoff" for Hare or "Ranked Pairs" for Condorcet.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">But I also identify with you about a frustration
regarding the common use of terms. I am particularly
disappointed that the label "RCV" has been co-opted by
FairVote and allies to mean "IRV" when the latter term lost
cachet in the U.S. approximately a decade ago. That is
particularly dishonest.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"> Robert</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="auto" font-size:9pt;"=""><i>Powered by Cricket
Wireless</i></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="font-size: 10pt;">
<div id="LGEmailHeader" dir="auto">
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">------ Original message------</div>
<div dir="auto"><b>From: </b>Richard Lung<voting@ukscientists.com></voting@ukscientists.com></div>
<div dir="auto"><b>Date: </b>Thu, Apr 18, 2024 11:08</div>
<div dir="auto"><b>To: </b>EM;</div>
<div dir="auto"><b>Cc: </b></div>
<div dir="auto"><b>Subject:</b>[EM] triple falsehood of
identifying IRV with Hare</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
</div>
<pre>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 <a href="https://electorama.com/em"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://electorama.com/em</a> for list info
</pre>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">----
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://electorama.com/em">https://electorama.com/em</a> for list info
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>