[Tloewald]

I've always though the Hare Clark system is intrinsically I democratic (even though it produces reasonable results) because no one seems to understand it (certainly the people who claim to can't explain it). It's also non deterministic -- the outcome can change hassle on the order in which votes are counted (although the impact will be very small in all probability)

[axman6]

How can the order in which votes are counted change the outcome?

The whole process is in my opinion pretty easy to understand: each ballot is assigned to the candidate who is marked as the top preference and each candidates votes are counted. the candidate with the fewest votes has their ballows reassigned based on their next preference. This process continues until there are only enough candidates left to fill the number of seats. I can't see how this is nondeterministic (but would like to know it could be).

[sgryphon]

STV used in Australia is deterministic. It does not change depending on the order in which votes are counted.

[Tloewald]

You don't understand the system. Surplus votes are distributed based on preferences, so order does matter because preferences will be different from one ballot to the next. Which ballots fill a candidate's quota determines which preferences don't get assigned.

[jlangenauer]

The preferences on quota surplus votes are transferred at a fractional value, so every ballot is counted.

It didn't always used to be though - prior to computers, to establish the fractional vote transfers, a "sample" of surplus votes to a quote used to be randomly selected.

[Tloewald]

Ok, thanks for the correction then. My knowledge of the system was out of date (as is the article I checked it against).

But the fact almost no voter understands it remains an undemocratic feature.

[jcrawfordor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote#Counti...

[Khaine]

As someone who has lived and voted in a system that uses hare clark, let me say that it is a horrible system, and should never ever be used!