D'Hondt method: Difference between revisions

In other words, now that A got the first seat, they are "looking to play" for two seats; they are seeing if they can secure two seats no matter what the other parties do with their votes. Notice that the idea of the division is that if the other parties try to take the one seat that A has, then A can re-fuse its votes to ensure they have more votes than the other parties. B gets the second seat and the votes become:

One easy way to do D'Hondt in certain simple examples is to compare all parties except the party with the fewest votes (the last-place party) with the last-place party; if all other parties can split more votes per seat than the last-place party has for even one seat such that all other parties would be able to win a combined number of seats equal to or greater than the number of seats to be filled, then the last-place party can be eliminated, and this procedure repeated, to find a minimum number of seats each party must win in D'Hondt. Example: Suppose there are 8 seats to be filled, and 4 parties, A through D, with the votes being (in descending order) A: 10, B: 8, C: 3, and D: 2. Start by dividing every party's votes by just over the last-place party's (D's) vote total (just over 2). Each party can put more than 2 votes per seat for this number of seats: A: 4 (10/2 = 5, which moved down to the next-closest integer is 4), B: 3 (8/2 = 4, shifted down = 3), and C: 1 (3/2 = 1.5 shifted down = 1). In total, these parties have 4 + 3 + 1 seats; this is the number of seats desired, therefore, this is the final result.<br />One of the only ranked PR methods that reduces to D'Hondt in its [[party list case]] is [[Schulze STV]]. Several [[cardinal PR]] methods reduce to D'Hondt if certain divisors are used.