[EM] Mr Hare's system

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[EM] Mr Hare's system

Richard Lung

To EM members,
From Richard Lung -- apologies my ipad doesn't like EM formats, some of them, and keeps saying this message has no content -- not meant to be a satirical comment. -- it could be argued they have too much!

I edited writings of "John Stuart Mill: Proportional Representation is Personal Representation" especially on Mr Hare's system, as he called it, when an MP in Parliament. It is the antithesis of what is being dubbed, here, or wherever, as "Hare STV."
My claim was that System Of Logic was like a work of antiquity, such is the tremendous progress of natural science. While, Representative Government is still ahead of its time. And this has much to do with Thomas Hare, independent inventor of the Andrae system, as it is called in Scandinavian countries -- but rarely used there. An exception was the Iceland Citizens Convention. And they called in a Scotsman, (Dr James Gilmour) for the STV count.
The great pioneer reformers, Clarence Hoag and George Hallett promoted At-large STV/PR -- the real "Hare STV" -- in many American cities. Cambridge, home of MIT, was the only city, where the science, in political science, out-weighed the political.

Regards,
Richard Lung.

----
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [EM] Mr Hare's system

robert bristow-johnson


> On 04/17/2021 9:40 AM Richard Lung <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>  
> To EM members,
>
> I edited writings of "John Stuart Mill: Proportional Representation is Personal Representation" especially on Mr Hare's system, as he called it, when an MP in Parliament. It is the antithesis of what is being dubbed, here, or wherever, as "Hare STV."

How is it different?  Other than multi-winner and the Hare threshold instead of Droop.

> My claim was that System Of Logic was like a work of antiquity, such is the tremendous progress of natural science.

The odd thing is that Condorcet is earlier than Hare.  I dunno all the history but I'll been that Hare STV caught on because it wasn't so much effort to tabulate by hand.

Condorcet is more principled.  Condorcet is committed to majority rule and Hare-STV is not.  (Hare-STV is Later No Harm and that's been flung at me before.)  But Hare cannot commit to this simple ethic: If more voters mark their ballots preferring Candidate A over Candidate B than the number of voters marking their ballots to the contrary, then Candidate B is not elected.

Condorcet is what delivers on the three big promises of "RCV" that FairVote promotes.  And any Condorcet is virtually precinct summable.  I consider that really important for the sake of transparency and doing better than FPTP.

But any Condorcet method is more laborious if hand counted.

> While, Representative Government is still ahead of its time. And this has much to do with Thomas Hare, independent inventor of the Andrae system, as it is called in Scandinavian countries -- but rarely used there. An exception was the Iceland Citizens Convention. And they called in a Scotsman, (Dr James Gilmour) for the STV count.
> The great pioneer reformers, Clarence Hoag and George Hallett promoted At-large STV/PR -- the real "Hare STV" -- in many American cities. Cambridge, home of MIT, was the only city, where the science, in political science, out-weighed the political.

Richard, I'm pretty sure that the city council elections in Cambridge Massachusetts are the same Hare STV that FairVote promotes.  Unless these are multiwinner election (I'm not sure about that).  Burlington used exactly the same software to run the election in 2009 and it even has the words "Cambridge" in some of the output files.  I can send them if you want.  Below at bottom I just pasted the text, FYI.

--

r b-j                  [hidden email]

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."




# Final piles of ballots, sorted by candidate.
# Created Tuesday, March 3, 2009 8:15 PM


# This file can be used for auditing, or for filling mid-term vacancies
# in Cambridge.  To fill a vacancy, edit the line below that says,
# "# CAMBRIDGE-VACANCY-RECOUNT candidate-code".  Remove the '#', so
# that ChoicePlusr will process the line, and replace "candidate-code"
# with the candidate code for whom the ballots are to be recounted.
# Be sure to rename the file when saving it!  E.g. to "<Your Election
# Title> Recount Input.txt".



# The following lines are the configuration lines necessary for a Cambridge
# style recount.
.COMPLY-WITH CAMBRIDGE
.ELECT 1


# The Candidates:
.CANDIDATE C01, "Bob Kiss"
.CANDIDATE C02, "Andy Montroll"
.CANDIDATE C03, "James Simpson"
.CANDIDATE C04, "Dan Smith"
.CANDIDATE C05, "Kurt Wright"
.CANDIDATE C06, "Write-in"

# The following lines exclude those candidates who
# were elected or excluded in the original election
# from participating in a future runoff.
.EXCLUDE-CANDIDATE C01

# ******* The following line must be edited for a Cambridge recount! *******
#.CAMBRIDGE-VACANCY-RECOUNT candidate-code

# Suppose that Joe Smith resigned mid-term, and Karen Jones was elected
# to fill that seat.  But then Karen Jones also resigned!  You can rerun
# the same recount, but specify that Karen Jones is excluded.
#.EXCLUDE-CANDIDATE candidate-code

# This specifies the format for the ballots
.BALLOT-FORMAT-FIELDS BALLOT-ID-ALPHA BALLOT-VALUE RANKINGS-ALPHA

# Ballots for candidate C01 ("Bob Kiss")
# Candidate has 4,313 ballots in his/her pile.
# Vote total: 4313.
.FINAL-PILE C01
000001-00-0001, 1) C01,C02
000001-00-0006, 1) C01,C02
000001-00-0008, 1) C01,C04,C02,C05,C03
...
    ...
        ...
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [EM] Mr Hare's system

Bob Richard [lists]
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.

--Bob Richard

------ Original Message ------
From: "robert bristow-johnson" <[hidden email]>
Sent: 4/19/2021 3:23:55 PM
Subject: Re: [EM] Mr Hare's system

 
 
On 04/17/2021 9:40 AM Richard Lung <[hidden email]> wrote:
 
 
To EM members,
 
I edited writings of "John Stuart Mill: Proportional Representation is Personal Representation" especially on Mr Hare's system, as he called it, when an MP in Parliament. It is the antithesis of what is being dubbed, here, or wherever, as "Hare STV."
 
How is it different? Other than multi-winner and the Hare threshold instead of Droop.
 
My claim was that System Of Logic was like a work of antiquity, such is the tremendous progress of natural science.
 
The odd thing is that Condorcet is earlier than Hare. I dunno all the history but I'll been that Hare STV caught on because it wasn't so much effort to tabulate by hand.
 
Condorcet is more principled. Condorcet is committed to majority rule and Hare-STV is not. (Hare-STV is Later No Harm and that's been flung at me before.) But Hare cannot commit to this simple ethic: If more voters mark their ballots preferring Candidate A over Candidate B than the number of voters marking their ballots to the contrary, then Candidate B is not elected.
 
Condorcet is what delivers on the three big promises of "RCV" that FairVote promotes. And any Condorcet is virtually precinct summable. I consider that really important for the sake of transparency and doing better than FPTP.
 
But any Condorcet method is more laborious if hand counted.
 
While, Representative Government is still ahead of its time. And this has much to do with Thomas Hare, independent inventor of the Andrae system, as it is called in Scandinavian countries -- but rarely used there. An exception was the Iceland Citizens Convention. And they called in a Scotsman, (Dr James Gilmour) for the STV count.
The great pioneer reformers, Clarence Hoag and George Hallett promoted At-large STV/PR -- the real "Hare STV" -- in many American cities. Cambridge, home of MIT, was the only city, where the science, in political science, out-weighed the political.
 
Richard, I'm pretty sure that the city council elections in Cambridge Massachusetts are the same Hare STV that FairVote promotes. Unless these are multiwinner election (I'm not sure about that). Burlington used exactly the same software to run the election in 2009 and it even has the words "Cambridge" in some of the output files. I can send them if you want. Below at bottom I just pasted the text, FYI.
 
--
 
 
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
 
 
 
 
# Final piles of ballots, sorted by candidate.
# Created Tuesday, March 3, 2009 8:15 PM
 
 
# This file can be used for auditing, or for filling mid-term vacancies
# in Cambridge. To fill a vacancy, edit the line below that says,
# "# CAMBRIDGE-VACANCY-RECOUNT candidate-code". Remove the '#', so
# that ChoicePlusr will process the line, and replace "candidate-code"
# with the candidate code for whom the ballots are to be recounted.
# Be sure to rename the file when saving it! E.g. to "<Your Election
# Title> Recount Input.txt".
 
 
 
# The following lines are the configuration lines necessary for a Cambridge
# style recount.
.COMPLY-WITH CAMBRIDGE
.ELECT 1
 
 
# The Candidates:
.CANDIDATE C01, "Bob Kiss"
.CANDIDATE C02, "Andy Montroll"
.CANDIDATE C03, "James Simpson"
.CANDIDATE C04, "Dan Smith"
.CANDIDATE C05, "Kurt Wright"
.CANDIDATE C06, "Write-in"
 
# The following lines exclude those candidates who
# were elected or excluded in the original election
# from participating in a future runoff.
.EXCLUDE-CANDIDATE C01
 
# ******* The following line must be edited for a Cambridge recount! *******
#.CAMBRIDGE-VACANCY-RECOUNT candidate-code
 
# Suppose that Joe Smith resigned mid-term, and Karen Jones was elected
# to fill that seat. But then Karen Jones also resigned! You can rerun
# the same recount, but specify that Karen Jones is excluded.
#.EXCLUDE-CANDIDATE candidate-code
 
# This specifies the format for the ballots
.BALLOT-FORMAT-FIELDS BALLOT-ID-ALPHA BALLOT-VALUE RANKINGS-ALPHA
 
# Ballots for candidate C01 ("Bob Kiss")
# Candidate has 4,313 ballots in his/her pile.
# Vote total: 4313.
.FINAL-PILE C01
000001-00-0001, 1) C01,C02
000001-00-0006, 1) C01,C02
000001-00-0008, 1) C01,C04,C02,C05,C03
...
...
...
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
 

----
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [EM] Mr Hare's system

robert bristow-johnson


> On 04/19/2021 6:35 PM Bob Richard [lists] <[hidden email]> 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 [hidden email]

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [EM] Mr Hare's system

Richard Lung
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.

Regards,
Richard Lung.


On 20 Apr 2021, at 2:09 am, robert bristow-johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:



> On 04/19/2021 6:35 PM Bob Richard [lists] <[hidden email]> 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 [hidden email]

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [EM] Mr Hare's system

James Gilmour
In reply to this post by Bob Richard [lists]
I do not understand why you would use any quota when counting votes in an IRV election (= Single-winner STV; aka Alternative Vote).

In an IRV election, the winner is the candidate who, at any stage of the count, has as many or more votes that all the remaining (‘continuing’) candidates combined.

You will find that regulation at 3b in the attached Regulations downloaded from the ERS website in 2014.  (These Regulations are an updated version of the AV Regulations I wrote for the ERS in 1978 with Major Frank Britton.)

James Gilmour
Edinburgh, Scotland

From: Election-Methods [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Bob Richard [lists]
Sent: 19 April 2021 23:35
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [EM] Mr Hare's system

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.

--Bob Richard


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

----
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info

ERS-Alternative-Vote-Election-Rules.pdf (17K) Download Attachment