just give more seats...
if there were 4 seats it would be 1,1,2 and thus fair

You can use hare and droop in same country at same time. Just in different regions

Yeah, in regions where polls say people twnd to vote with 2 parties, Droop is Best, where people tend to vote with more parties use Hare.

Maybe the seats should be given in a way that minimises the difference between votes and seats

So you could do Hare at local, district, and county level to encourage the creation and growth of parties, then at national level have Droop to encourage more likely majority.
Can you use STV and MMP as a combined system?

I cant find any example of such a system, but I dont see why you wouldnt be able to. Personally I would prefer a system with no parties and CPO-STV, but if we're gonna have parties then maybe a combination of MMP and CPO-STV could be neat.

'The slim majority having control' is the US philosophy of 'winner take all'.

I think that I prefer droop because a) it would be more successful in its implementation with less opposition i.e. larger parties may be marginally less averse to reverting to it and b) coalitions often cause governments who struggle to conclude politics. Obviously, I know that that makes me sound like every politician who's ever tried to retain their seat by bad-mouthing proportionally, but I do advocate proportional representation; it's just that as we saw in places like the Weimar Republic, coalitions often prevent strong governments, so at some point, representation must cease to go to its full extent. First past the post is horrifically undemocratic, but I think that hare STV would be slightly unsuccessfully. It's not of massive importance to me, though, and I'd be similarly satisfied with hare as with droop.

What if, instead of single transferable vote, it would he htv - half transferable vote. Where if it was to move onto the second option, it would only give half a vote. This would make the voters prefer to vote their first choice.

Your vote being worth half when your first choice fails to be become a representative would incentivise them to vote for the parties more likely to win so they have more say, bloating up bigger parties at the expense of the party you actually want? Why do we need to give them more intensive for them to vote for their first choice in the first place, what's the intensive to not vote for the parties you want to win in the order your prefer?

Then I guess the question I have to ask is which situation is more likely to happen? I think I would still prefer droop because it seems to me like the first scenario is much more likely to happen than the second, but if I'm wrong on that, I would say hare then. Depends on which is more likely
No system of voting is perfect or absolutely perfectly representative, but you can get close. Additionally, it's important for a nation's constitution to protect the basic rights of people who are social minorities so that one election can't take that away.

prefer hare

Maybe use a bicameral system. The House of Reps is Hare while the Senate is Droop.

Maybe the opposite, because the senate is ment to be a voice of reason or a cooling saucer of some sort, more opinions should be represented for proper debate

Why not run both Droop and Hare at the same time and then pick the method that most closely resembles the election results (via yet more maths, of course)?

SHOW ME THE MATH

Winning on slim majority seems less democratic that a coalition.

While more complex perhaps each range should go with he system that best represents the people?

Just use both and see the outcome and decide which is closer

For the final seat of the first example, tiger would still get it because tiger has 13% and gorilla has 7%. Gorilla would be the loser in this situation due to the raw numbers. I think you thought it was 3%

Honestly, by my preference, i'd say Hare is slightly better. I'd rather my government be cooperative, having to work together to effectively govern instead of one party trying to force through everything on a slim majority. We're having that problem in the UK right now, and it ain't fun.

what about the first example, hare is definitely wrong. You should consider both options before choosing a favourite

I guess if we want more parties in America we should use Hare. And give Hares the right to vote for consistency’s sake.

With Hare, in the first example the wrong result occurs. In the second it favours coalitions and minority rule. That's one huge negative result and one mixed result that's up to personal philosophy
With Droop, in the first example the objectively more democratic result. In the second it favours a system where a party has control. In this second instance Droop allows for a government to occasionally be speedier in their actions and enacting laws and change/progress. So Droop has one good result and one result that leads to an expedient government, which is still a mixed result up to personal philosophy.
Seems Droop is the best option then

With over 300 million Americans, the question is how many seats should the House of Representatives have under STV, in total assuming most seats have between 5-7, with dense populations [like NYC] having 9 and sparsely populated areas [like Alaska] having 3.

There must be an interchangeable system that favors the most diversity amongst the populace within a reasonable degree. For example, if there are three major parties noted on the charts, there should be a representative from those parties.
However, the system should also allow for multiple seats to be occupied by the same party within reason. For example, there are five parties, but only three major parties are going to win. Then, the parties with the most representation (votes or what have you) should have more chairs to best represent that group.
In the event that there is an error in the system, there should be some sort of backup system to override broken results. For example, there is eight major parties for five seats, but everyone was the dumb and only voted for one person, somehow making an eight-way tie. Well, what to do? We could hold another election with those eight and mandate that everyone must vote two or more. This is certainly one option, but it is not the only one that could work.

Droop gets the correct result in the first scenario but hair gets the more desirable result in the second scenario.

What about the average of the two systems?: Votes/(Reps+1/2)+1/2
If Hare favors the small and Droop the large, would the average be "unbiased"?

I believe hare is a better system to preventing a two-party state. The reason is it makes it easier for Independent candidate or candidates run instead of joining a political party in local districts.

So it's like this?
Hare: v/s=h(v)
Droop: v/(s+1)+1=d(v)

Considering the US and how corrupt big parties are and how easy a corporate entity can buy them. I'd rather use Hare then Droop and get more options.

In either system, the big parties would see some dramatic changes. The parties are the way they are because of FPTP.

Webster's Paradox😂

I would use STV mixed with MMP, so I guess Hare would give more local minority representatives and more majority party representatives, whilst Droop would give more local majority representatives and more of the top members or minority parties. I don't know which would be better though.

use hare or droop depending on the average size of the parties.

But how droop work tho?

Think about it like this: When you are electing one person the majority is 50% + 1 not 100%. Therefore electing 2 people should be 33% + 1, 3 should be 25% + 1, 4 should be 20% +1, 5 should be 16.66% + 1 ect.

Learn more here than in school across 7 years

I thought he used Hare because rabbit puns tbh

I think when doing a system I would go for STV droop for reps and the same for pres. But once a law is about to be passed as in it has passed through legislation the people would get a final vote either yes or no. For that i’d do FTPT because you can only get a majority with 2 choices people who abstain don’t care which one so it doesn’t matter. And i think veto sucks.

1:17 I'm trying to wrap my head around how this can happen. In what distribution of voters can this possibly happen? I'd like to see the maths, please.

Wikipedia has a worked example here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_Hare_and_Droop_quotas#Scenario_1

Could've just used droop method and made a footnote video about the formula for it.

A church ad before the video... Desgusting

My country's population is about 1.5 million (smaller than some American cities). I think hare might work

I favor Hare

Damn, you care about the details. If you have to make something quick and easy to explain you actually go the extra mile and fully explain the concept in another video. Its impressive

Droop for house, Hare for Senate?

I understand the difference, but can you now explain how Droop works????

Would it not be possible to use hare is some constituencies and droop in others, depending on the number of seats available and the number of candidates running? Surely that way the fairest outcome would result, given these two different methods.

I need to understand this more

I don't understand how adding to the denominator is confusing isn't order of operations standard curriculum

How long have countries been using this system? was it around back when the constitution was built?

This was invented actually before almost all modern constitutions were written, in 1819. I believe it was first used for entire legislators in the Republic of Ireland, I think it was used before that in the university constituencies in the UK parliament, the rest of the seats were allocated with people getting say 2 votes they could use out of 3 seat districts, sometimes 1 vote out of two candidates, also called the limited vote, and municipalities in the US used it a bit before the Republic of Ireland chose it. Australia followed for Senatorial elections in I think 1948. Update: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote#History_and_current_use Found the history.

Hare when there are few representatives, droop when there are more.

i like the way he says owl

It must be possible to have a system that takes the results into consideration and decides whether to use Hare or Droop based on which would more accurately represent how people voted.

I prefer Hare in the second one, since Monkey shouldn't have absolute control

Why not dynamically increase the number of reps ?
24% is a substantial amount of voters, so why not go from 3 reps to 4 and keep DROOP ?
Like you said, 3 is a bad number...

Which system would be best if you were electing duumvirs? (Like triumvirs but only two). Say in addition to a president you have a second post which should be held by the leader of the opposition and certain powerful powers can only be used by the president with the consent of the opposition leader (like say enacting or prolonging a state of emergency).

what if on every election, prior to the stv election, you did a hare vs droop, to vote on the system. this way depending on the amount of canidates & the way popular vote is swaying, the vote changes.

Why can't it be decided which method to use after the votes are counted? so the fearest option is always more likely to be elected?

@Remus Lupin I guess that comes to a filosofical question like said in the video, drats.

@Remus Lupin That makes sense, what about deciding the one that brings more diversity? could that be a desired trait to make a fairer council?

Charle Gonzalez Mendoza It's better to be consistent and always use the same one. On the last example in the video, where hare had one of each as a rep, and droop had two monkeys and an owl: People will disagree on which one is the "fairer" option. Who will decide which one is fairer? Lynx supporters will say hare is fairer, but monkey supporters will say droop is fairer. It's better to have that cleared up beforehand.

I would like a full run-through of droop. It seems interesting

my opinion on the final example of hair and drop is that more diversity is a good thing and that it would help the political discussion. it's been proven that more diverse groups both ethnically and philosophically working in a team out perform even a smarter group of similar individuals.

I would be interested in the maths of how Droop works (Why +1?). Maybe another video?

Droop takes into account "wasted" or "exhausted" votes.

In other words, Total votes - (number of seats)*(Droop quota) < Droop quota

Here's a better math explanation as to why the Droop quota works: Let T = Total number of votes N = number of seats Therefore Droop quota = (T/(N+1) + 1) T - N (T/(N+1) + 1) = 1/(N+1) (T(N+1) - TN - N(N+1)) = 1/(N+1) (TN + T - TN - N^2 - N) = 1/(N+1) (T - N^2 - N) = T/(N+1) - N(N+1)/(N+1) = T/(N+1) - N < T/(N+1) + 1

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droop_quota Well the formula is Integer (total valid poll / (seats + 1)) + 1 If the total number of seats is 4 then we would have Integer (100%/(4+1)) + 1 = 20% + 1 So (20% + 1) is our droop quota. We can see this is the minimum number to fill up 4 seats as 100% - 4 (20% + 1) = 100% - 80% - 4 = 20% - 4 < 20% + 1 which is our droop quota.

Basically it's how many votes you need to guarantee you can't be beaten. If you're electing one candidate from 100 votes, you could run the whole way through, eliminating people and moving second votes until you have 100 votes for the winner (Hare) Or you could divide by the number of votes by candidates +1 (100/(1+1)) = 50 plus 1 vote, 51. Once you have 51 votes, nobody can beat you so we may as well stop and say you won. Simlarly with 3 candidates from 100 votes, you could run the whole vote until everyone has 33 votes but it's clear that once a candidate has 26 votes they can't come 4th and so must win a seat.

Why have it not like this:
Amount of seats
--------------------------- = amount of votes needed for a seat in senate/parliament/council whatever.
Votes casts
What's so wrong about this?

Got to say I prefer hare then, coalitions are great they make people negotiate and compromise.

@Robims "because it can just pair up with another party in the next period." that is not the strongest weapon in the arsenal of any coalied party... they can change coalitions IN THE MIDDLE of a term, demand a vote of no confidence and set up a new chancellor with one or two other partners as long as the numbers fit... that is how Helmut Schmidt lost his office to Helmut Kohl in 1982. It requires the numbers to be very obviously sufficient for a successful vote in advance though, else the bigger party might just call the bluff and think they would still win the vote of no confidence.

@Robims No it tends towards the parties close to the centre having more influence because they can turn to both sides to find allies to compromise with. Those parties then grow because they are parties which have the potential to lead the country. Personally I see that as a feature not a bug.

@Fredrik Dunge yeah, but it still tends towards the leading party having more influence because it can just pair up with another party in the next period. I also think that coalitions are better than single ruling parties, but I prefer having 3 parties instead of 2

@Robims That's not really the case in Germany there's plenty of compromise needed to reach agreements.

Or one party just dominance the other. (Germany)

why note both? crunch both of the numbers and which ever is more representative of the voters becomes the one used.

I could be wrong, but I think he meant how well the resulting members of the council represent the votes cast.

I am sorry. Perhaps I need to work on my explaining skills. I will restate. You said that they should compare the votes to the demographics to decide on whether they should choose droop or hare. I tried to point out that you can't know the demographics without the votes so there is nothing to compare.There is no way to know if the droop or hare method would be more "representative" because all you have are the votes. Perhaps we have a misunderstanding about what "demographics" means. What do you mean by that word? How would we compare it to the votes cast?

I don't understand your point I'm afraid. The demographics are separate from the votes but if you choose to abstain then your forfeiting your ability to affect decisions. So then why would the demographics of people who chose to let other people do all the work matter? Are you talking about minors who can't vote yet that becomes a lot more complicated. Should we assume the parents demographics match the kids? Well that's going to be a problem for the gay son to the homophobic parents whom the government assumes is also homophobic. Do we prob these young people with questions that they haven't had the opportunity to explore and answer? That is a complicated gray area but by not forcing that responsibility onto people whom you have to fight in order to make them take a shower is better then making them make choices that they are woefully ill prepared for.

@Kayne Randolph By that definition then the votes always match the demographics 100% because they are the same thing.

How would it be harder? If we have the votes then we have the demographics.

Would a system taking the midway between the the minimum quota calculations for both Hare and Droop work well as a way to stay proportioned effectively? For instance, if three candidates are needed from 100 people, Hare would state that 33 votes are needed to get a seat and Droop would state that 26 are needed to get a seat. The difference between the two requirements is 7.333 votes (using the remainder from Hare for accuracy). If that difference were split down the middle to ~3.8 or 4 after rounding up and set at 30 votes required to get a seat, how would that affect the likelihood of a larger or smaller party getting elected? Would it split it down the middle more or less? Or would something different happen? Or would a slippery slope situation occur where the medium itself is challenged in comparison to Hare or Droop and another medium is created that leans toward one side?

I don't understand the tigers vs gorillas election example. STV is about votes to the candidates, not to the parties. Can you please work it out with numbers?

My preference in the second example would come down to the total discrepancy between each party and their representation.
Under Hare:
Lynx is over-represented by 9⅓%.
Owl is over-represented by 8⅓%.
Monkey is under-represented by 18⅔%.
The total discrepancy for the Hare system is *36⅓%*.
Under Droop:
Lynx is not represented at all, so that's 24% right there.
Owl is over-represented by 8⅓%.
Monkey is over-represented by 15⅔%.
The total discrepancy under the Droop system is *48%*.
Hare's system is closer, so it wins.
Unless I'm missing something, I think this comparison might actually benefit a lot of STV systems.

Well since it’s government over 50% is the same as 100%. With the vote a majority of people did not want Lynx or Owl, the same as a majority of people wanting Monkey. Under Hare: A majority of the government is Lynx and Owl, or a minority is Monkey. A majority is now a minority. Under Droop: A majority of government is Monkey, or a minority of government is Lynx or Owl. A majority is still a majority.

Yes, thank you, this was my thought exactly

@Lucas Knapp Because over-representation implies, under-representation in the same amount, adding all differences will always be 0 (and indeed, Monkey is 17⅔% under-represented in the first case, I also double checked and the rest of the results are correct). As Nick said, dividing positive (or, the same, negative) misrepresentation by two might give a better estimate, which would give ~9% and 12% differences.

I think I would actually prefer looking at it through average discrepancy. Obviously, perfect representation would be zero, but any over-representation yields a positive and any under-representation yields a negative. So using the second example: Under Hare: Lynx = +9⅓%. Owl = +8⅓%. Monkey = -18⅔%. The average discrepancy for the Hare system would then be -⅓%. Under Droop: Lynx = -24% Owl = +8⅓%. Monkey = +15⅔%. The average discrepancy under the Droop system is 0%. Whichever system is closer to zero would be better, which in the above example would be Droop. And if for whatever reason both were the same distance from zero (ex. Hare = 1% and Droop = -1%), in my opinion the better one would be the system with a positive discrepancy. Because I feel that it's better for the "average party" to be over-represented than under-represented.

@Twentydragon In that case would it not make sense to divide the misrepresentation by half? If it's +1% in favor of one party, it automatically means it's -1% for the other party. The absolute difference is 2%, but it's 1% of the people that is misrepresented.

If you use Hare, it'll cause Small parties to win, and then they get noticed more, then they gain traction and become larger and larger until they become unfavored by Hare when a new small party or a former large party becomes favored. It's a cycle. While Droop will keep the large parties in place.

It may be best to use Hare for some districts and Droop for others. Two-party districts should use Droop, Multi-party districts should use hare for representativeness. Generally, we should expand districts as needed to increase accurate representation (like giving that last district 4 seats.

@John Jeffrey The NSDAP also promised to fix a nation in which democracy had failed the people, the economy, and the country, and the Reichstag had effectively 0 power since the president could just rule by emergency powers, which he often had to at that point

@Jackson DeStefano That Marius face, tho

@Jacob It was true for the Nazi Party. New parties have a cleaner record and do often gain popularity fast

You're making the assumption that a new party will consistently be better and more liked than an old one, which simply isn't true.

Thanks!!

OR they could flip a coin to choose which metthod...

?

Well, coalitions, duh. One party ruling by 51% is like a dictatorship for the 49%, and if this system is in place it is likely to stay that way because any vote on the matter will lead to ≈51% of the people voting to keep the system in place, and it isn't hard to imagine why.

Is the 100 still just a percentage in droop?

In STV, the goal is to find the N candidates who get above a threshold. If the threshold were (total votes) / (N+1), then we could have a N+1 candidates all tied at that threshold. As long as the threshold is 1 + (total votes)/(N+1), no more than N candidates can reach it. Therefore, the Droop threshold is the smallest number of votes that ensure that no more than N candidates can reach the threshold.

Although there is a big difference if the Droop quota is raised by 1% or 1 vote every time the number of votes is something else than 100. 1000 votes and three seats could mean you need either 260 votes for one seat or 251 votes for one seat depending on if the calculation deals with percentage or actual votes.

@XandWacky Sorry, in the example it is votes AND percent, because it is 100 votes. It would be necessary to convert with any other number of votes. So for 1000 votes with 3 seats, the Hare quota would be 333 1/3 (33 1/3%), and the Droop quota would be 250 (25%).

@Rob749s So if 1000 votes were put up, it'd be 1000. That' be heck for 3 seats (If you have 1000 voters, you'd probably have more seats).

It's votes

I would say the correct answer to the problem in the last election would be to add another rep.

In your second example i thinks it droop, because 51% of the group wanted monkey, and when they do law stuff monkeys should technically win the decision, and hare dosn't represent that.

So, in Canada we're currently debating alternatives to the first-past-the-post electoral system. We have 5 main parties that each send a representative to run for Prime Minister. Would a system like this work for that? Like, say a party needs 50% to win, so you cut out the loser, add the 2nd choices, and re-count?

+JuiceBoxWizard You are describing Alternative vote or Instant Runoff, see Grey's video on the subject and its problems. There are better ways to have single-winner elections, Schulze is probably the best, but its a bit complex and Grey doesn't have a video on it. STV, the topic of this video, can't be used for single-winner elections, only multiple-winner representative councils/parliaments/congresses/bodies.

Wow what the heck do you actualy do for a living to know such things xD Or what did you study for that matter XD

He used to be a teacher, but now he does these videos for a living

+nelumvia He makes videos, that's his job. I'd recommend listining to his podcasts, Hello Internet and Cortex.

Both should be used, hate would be used when droop wouldn't accurately represent the population & vice versa

@MrKcspot you can tell which one is more accurate via a mathematical percentage differential method between the actual votes and the formed government (there are actually a couple voting systems that work this way intentionally, where you just match voting percentage and the government as close as you can.) So the first example looks like this: Hare: (60-47) + (53-40) = 13 + 13 = 26 error Droop: (47-40 )+ (60-53) = 7+7= 14 error and the second example looks like this Hare: (33-24) + (33-25) + (51-33) = 9 + 8 + 18 = 35 error Droop: (24-0) + (33-25) + (67-51) = 24 + 8 + 16 = 48 error

+Brooks Gaming Proportionality isn't the point though. The point of STV is that a candidate gets exactly as many votes as they need to win. To allow overkill is to punish voters for supporting a popular candidate. The Hare method forces overkill. With three winners, as soon as a candidate gets more than 25% of the vote, they've won. If you total their votes all the way up to 33%, you're basically discarding the 8% of the total votes by assigning them to a candidate that already won, those people might as well not have voted.

+Brooks Gaming ho would you tell that? I think that it should be immediately recognizable to whom gets what method. hare should probably be used in more populated areas to more closely represent the population and droop should be used in less populated areas.

Hare*

I understand Droop better than Hare, if Hare was used to fill one seat the quota would be 100%.

STV is exclysively for 3 or more seats

@Gregg Cayman No Australia does and always has used Droop. Look at the top right hand corner of the official count: results.aec.gov.au/20499/website/External/SenateStateDop-20499-TAS.pdf

@ajuk1 At the time I wrote that response the Federal senate voting reforms had not passed. The STV hare is still being used by some states though.

@Gregg Cayman Australia are dumb, they also force you to fill the list in for all but one of the candidates, total shoe in for one of the major parties to get your vote.

To fill one seat, the threshold under Hare would be 100%. Under Droop, the threshold would be 50% + 1.

the question is WHAT HAPPENS if "nunber of seats" = "numbers of parties x 2" that would be an interesting variable to see

+Ramiro Galletti The parties run multiple candidates. Since votes are redistributed if you win, and votes are redistributed if you are eliminated, there is no risk of two candidates dividing their supporters in half. In Ireland parties generally run one more candidate than the amount of seats they expect to win in that particular district.

"Do you favor coalitions? Or do you favor a slim majority having absolute control?" Yeah. Very impartial lol. (I agree with you)

Why not use something in the middle?

There really is no middle ground, even though you could change the math for the exact number of delegates needed, you could still often end up with the same 33-33-33 or 67-33 results, since only one seat if affected by the choice

I honestly would favor Hare in the latter instance. While yes, you do have a chance of being run by a minority, with the lack of known details, you don't know that to be true. How do you know that Owl and Lynx would work together better than say Lynx and Monkey? Using Hare would ensure a more collaborative government which would benefit all people in the end.

Jaco as programmer8 said, hare just better represents the populace. thats honestly my main concern.

Basically it comes down to due you favor the minority or the majority.

Technically Hare results in the least discrepancy in this case (36.5% vs 48%). So it does represent the population better than Droop

the main problem with hare is that it leaves a large amount of people backing a candidate they don't like

How about you calculate both the systems, and then look which one has the least percentage difference to go with that one for that specific election.

Personally, I think in the Monkey-Lynx-Owl scenario that the Hare result is better. Everyone who voted gets a representative, rather than 24% of the population being somewhat disenfranchised. Government is sort of a separate issue to the voting system, closely related but separate.

Seeing as Droop works better for ranges with larger numbers, and Hare better for smallranes, why not just have a rule saying ranges with 3 seats or less use Hare, 4 seats or more use droop?

you sound very teacher-y here :D

General question:  Are there any governments that use Droop in a two party election and Hare in a three party or more election?

This is so strange... 
I have absolutely not the first clue what this video is about.  I find myself laughing at my puzzlement; I like being completely ignorant of something, at least for a moment.
-
Alas, once I look up the meaning of this seemingly nonsensical rant, it will become all too clear and that magical sense of novelty that has been transmuted into wonderment by my frantic imagination, sans some simple knowledge...will be gone forever.

3:00 Hare:
33% + 33% + 33% = 99% Owl should be 34%.

100% dictatorship ftw.

Only Droop ensures that an absolute majority of votes translates into an absolute majority of seats.

CGP Grey you need to add your new vids to the Politics in the Animal Kingdom play list 

Hare would help negate groupthink, so I go for hare.

I'd go hare

I think you underestimated your audience in not using droop in your STV explanation. A good way to explain the "n+1" issue that you avoided is thus:
everyone gets that to win a single member electorate with an absolute majority you need 50% of the vote. But actually 50% plus one vote, because it would be technically possible for two candidates to get 50% each.
You don't need 100% of the votes to get win a seat that returns one member. Apply that. To win a seat in an electorate/district/range/riding that returns two members, you need 1 third of the votes plus one vote. That's it. Votes divided by (number of seats plus one) plus one extra vote to avoid a tie. For a 5 member range, one sixth of the vote plus one. For a seven member range, one eighth of the vote plus one.
I think you could have explained it better than I have just there, and I think your audience would have for it.

CGP Grey sounds a lot like Salman Khan. I never noticed it before because I've never heard his voice without music behind it.

lol is this the guy from khan academy?

In the last scenario, I think that hate is better because it is more representative of the population. However I can see how having no outright majority would be a problem

I don't understand the first example. Maybe this has already been discussed and I just missed it in the comments, but it seems the Hare would end the same as Droop. Percentage for Hare is 1/5=20. First seat goes goes to Tiger, subtract twenty for the win, assume all votes go to 2nd candidate, now it's 33-47. Second vote goes to Gorilla, now its 33-27. Both happen again, so now 13 Tiger, 7 Gorilla. Neither have enough to earn a spot so lowest (Gorilla) is dropped and Tiger gets the third seat, same as Droop. Is there something I'm missing?

@Nate Snyder @Zwerggoldhamster @Jim Smith It's true that with 5 candidates you will not get this imbalance. But with 6 candidates it can happen. Ex. 120 total votes, 2 parties with 1st party getting 31,30,2 votes for its candidates and second party 20,20,17 votes. ( Pulled from wikipedia Comparison of the Hare and Droop quotas Scenario 1 )

Remember, there's no perfect electoral method nor even an electoral system. You just have to adopt one or two (in case of parallel voting) which you think it will give you the kind of results you want. It's all about what kind of results you want or what you think is ideal to a state or to an organization.

Great video, but there's a real problem with saying "that's just a philosophical difference, I don't think there's a right answer," as if there were no right answers in philosophy. It would be one thing to say "that's a philosophical question which is outside the scope of this video," but it's big mistake to say that there are no right answers in philosophy.

Yawn...this whole thing sounds rather arbitrary. Can a "representative" really represent hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of other people? -or better yet, can a representative even represent one other person on multiple issues over multiple years..?
You should read some Murray Rothbard. Instead of getting lost in conceptual mathematics for an evil institution, get down with practical logic. You were almost there with your jury nullification video

he sounds bored in this

SEE GREY? You CAN release fast videos! Do a major video release, then release notes on that one weekly. You keep the viewer base up, and you get to research topics thoroughly in the mean time.
You're viewers get their weekly exposure to your benevolent and buttery voice, and you get to be as thorough and as precise as you want. Everybody wins!

It goes to whichever one bribes the people with other peoples money.