Legal Definitions - Hare–Ware voting

Hare–Ware voting, also commonly known as Instant-Runoff Voting (IRV) or Ranked-Choice Voting, is an electoral system designed to ensure that the winning candidate has the support of a majority of voters. Instead of simply choosing one candidate, voters rank candidates in order of their preference (e.g., 1st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd choice, and so on).

The process works as follows:

• First, all first-preference votes are counted.
• If any candidate receives more than 50% of these first-preference votes, that candidate is declared the winner.
• If no candidate achieves a majority, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated.
• The ballots from the eliminated candidate are then re-examined, and those votes are transferred to the voters' next-ranked choice among the remaining candidates.
• This process of eliminating the last-place candidate and redistributing their votes continues in rounds until one candidate secures a majority of the remaining votes and is declared the winner.

This system aims to elect a candidate who is broadly acceptable to the electorate, preventing a winner from being chosen with only a small plurality of votes when many voters might have preferred another candidate.

Here are some examples to illustrate Hare–Ware voting:

• Example 1: A City Council Election

  Imagine a city holding an election for a single City Council seat, with three candidates: Ms. Rodriguez, Mr. Chen, and Dr. Gupta. The city uses Instant-Runoff Voting. Voters rank their choices 1st, 2nd, and 3rd.

  • In the first round, Ms. Rodriguez receives 45% of the first-preference votes, Mr. Chen gets 30%, and Dr. Gupta receives 25%.
  • Since no candidate has over 50%, Dr. Gupta, with the fewest first-preference votes, is eliminated.
  • The ballots where Dr. Gupta was ranked first are then reviewed. If a voter ranked Mr. Chen as their second choice, that vote is now transferred to Mr. Chen. If they ranked Ms. Rodriguez second, that vote goes to Ms. Rodriguez.
  • After redistributing Dr. Gupta's votes, let's say Mr. Chen now has 40% (his original 30% plus some transferred votes) and Ms. Rodriguez has 60% (her original 45% plus some transferred votes).
  • This illustrates Hare–Ware voting because Ms. Rodriguez, who did not have a majority initially, wins by consolidating enough second-preference votes from eliminated candidates to achieve over 50% support.
• Example 2: A University Student Body President Election

  Students at a large university are electing their Student Body President. There are four candidates: Emily, Liam, Sofia, and Noah. The university employs Hare–Ware voting to ensure the president has broad student support.

  • After the initial count of first-preference votes: Emily has 35%, Liam has 28%, Sofia has 20%, and Noah has 17%.
  • No one has a majority. Noah, with the fewest votes, is eliminated. His voters' second choices are then distributed to Emily, Liam, or Sofia.
  • After this redistribution, suppose the new totals are: Emily 38%, Liam 32%, Sofia 30%. Still no majority.
  • Sofia, now with the fewest votes, is eliminated. Her voters' second choices (among Emily and Liam) are then distributed.
  • Finally, after Sofia's votes are redistributed, Liam might reach 51% and Emily 49%.
  • This demonstrates Hare–Ware voting by showing how candidates are progressively eliminated, and their voters' preferences are transferred, until one candidate achieves a true majority of the active votes, reflecting a deeper consensus among the student body.
• Example 3: A Professional Association Board Election

  A national association of architects is electing a new Vice President. There are five candidates: Dr. Kim, Mr. Jones, Ms. Lee, Dr. Patel, and Mr. Smith. The association uses Instant-Runoff Voting to select a leader who can unite the membership.

  • In the first round, the first-preference votes are: Dr. Kim 28%, Mr. Jones 22%, Ms. Lee 19%, Dr. Patel 16%, Mr. Smith 15%.
  • Mr. Smith, with the lowest count, is eliminated. His votes are transferred based on the voters' second choices.
  • This process continues, eliminating the candidate with the fewest votes in each round and redistributing their votes, until only two candidates remain.
  • Eventually, let's say Dr. Kim and Mr. Jones are the last two candidates. All previously eliminated candidates' votes have been transferred to either Dr. Kim or Mr. Jones based on the voters' preferences. The candidate who then has over 50% of the total votes wins.
  • This example highlights Hare–Ware voting's ability to narrow down a large field of candidates to a single winner who has demonstrated majority support through a series of ranked preferences, rather than just winning a plurality in a crowded race.