<html><head>
</head>
<body style="margin-bottom:45px">
<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">https://electorama.com/em</a> for list info
</pre></div>
</body></html>