In the study of apportionment, the Hare quota (sometimes called the simple, ideal, or Hamilton quota) is the number of voters represented by each legislator under an idealized system of proportional representation, where every legislator represents an equal number of voters. The Hare quota is the total number of votes divided by the number of seats to be filled. The Hare quota was used in the original proposal for a single transferable vote system, and is still occasionally used, although it has since been largely supplanted by the Droop quota.
The quota continues to be used in setting electoral thresholds, as well as for calculating apportionments by the largest remainder method (LR-Hare) or other quota-based methods of proportional representation. In such use cases, the Hare quota gives unbiased apportionments that favor neither large nor small parties.[1]
The Hare quota may be given as:
where
In an STV election a candidate who reaches the quota is elected while any votes a candidate receives above the quota in many cases have the opportunity to be transferred to another candidate in accordance to the voter's next usable marked preference. Thus the quota is used both to determine who is elected and to determine the number of surplus votes when a person is elected with quota. When the Droop quota is used, often about a quota of votes are not used to elect anyone (a much lower proportion that under the first-past-the-post voting system) so the quota is a cue to the number of votes that are used to actually elect someone.[2]
The Hare quota was devised by Thomas Hare, the first to identify of STV. In 1868, Henry Richmond Droop (1831–1884) invented the Droop quota as an alternative to the Hare quota. The he Hare quota today is rarely used with STV due to fact that Droop is considered more fair to both large parties and small parties.
The number of votes in the quota is determined by the district magnitude of the district in conjunction with the number of valid votes cast.[3]
To see how the Hare quota works in an STV election, imagine an election in which there are two seats to be filled and three candidates: Andrea, Brad, and Carter. One hundred voters voted, each casting one vote and marking a back-up preference, to be used only in case the first preference candidate is un-electable or elected with surplus. There are 100 ballots showing preferences as follows:
| Number of voters |
60 voters |
26 voters |
14 voters |
| 1st preference | Andrea | Brad | Carter |
| 2nd preference | Carter | Andrea | Andrea |
Because there are 100 voters and 2 seats, the Hare quota is:
To begin the count the first preferences cast for each candidate are tallied and are as follows:
Andrea has reached the quota and is declared elected. She has 10 votes more than the quota so these votes are transferred to Carter, as specified on the ballots. The tallies of the remaining candidates therefore now become:
At this stage, there are only two candidates remaining and one seat open. The most popular candidate is declared elected and the other is declared defeated.
Although Brad has not reached the quota, he is declared elected since he has more votes than Carter.
The winners are therefore Andrea and Brad.
Hong Kong and Brazil use the Hare quota in largest-remainder systems.
InBrazil's largest remainder system the Hare quota is used to set the minimum number of seats allocated to each party or coalition. Remaining seats are allocated according to the D'Hondt method.[4] This procedure is used for the Federal Chamber of Deputies, State Assemblies, Municipal and Federal District Chambers.
For geographical constituencies, the SAR government adopted weakly-proportional representation using the largest remainder method with Hare quota in 1997[citation needed]. Typically, largest remainders paired with the Hare quota produces unbiased results that are difficult to manipulate.[1] However, the combination of extremely small districts, no electoral thresholds, and low led to a system that parties could manipulate using careful vote management.
By running candidates on separate tickets, Hong Kong parties aimed to ensure they received no seats in the first step of apportionment, but still received enough votes to take several of the remainder seats when running against a divided opposition.[5] The Democratic Party, for example, filled three separate tickets in the 8-seat New Territories West constituency in the 2008 Legislative Council elections. In the 2012 election, no candidate list won more than one seat in any of the six PR constituencies (a total of 40 seats). In Hong Kong, the Hare quota has effectively created a multi-member single-vote system in the territory.[6][7][8]
In situations where parties' total share of the vote varies randomly, the Hare quota is the unique unbiased quota for an electoral system based on vote-transfers or quotas.[1] When the number of seats in each constituency is large and vote management becomes impractical (as it requires an unrealistic degree of coordination of voters), the quota becomes fully unbiased.
However, if the quota is used in small constituencies with no electoral threshold, it is possible to manipulate the system by running several candidates on separate lists, allowing each to win a remainder seat with less than a full quota. This can transform the method into a de facto single nontransferable vote system, a situation that has been seen in Hong Kong.[8] By contrast, Droop's quota cannot be manipulated in the same way, as it is never possible for a party to gain seats by splitting.[1]
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
|
Types of majority and other electoral quotas
| |
|---|---|
| Single winner (majority) |
|
| Electoral quotas |
|
| Other |
|
