D'Hondt method: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
|||
Line 2:
{{merge|Jefferson method}}
The '''d'Hondt method'''
It is used in: Argentina, Austria, Bulgaria, Chile, Denmark (for local elections), Finland, Israel, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Spain, as well as elections to the European Parliament in some countries. The method is named after Belgian mathematician [[Victor d'Hondt]]. Jefferson's method is named after Thomas Jefferson, and was used to apportion the U.S. House of Representatives between 1792 and 1840.
==Allocation==
Line 123:
Some systems allow parties to associate their lists together into a single ''cartel'' in order to overcome the threshold, while some systems set a separate threshold for cartels. Smaller parties often form pre-election [[coalition]]s to make sure they get past the election threshold.
== Jefferson's method ==
Jefferson's method is equivalent to D'Hondt, but is described differently: <blockquote>Choose a divisor D. A state with population N (or a political party with N seats) is entitled to floor(N/D) seats. If the number of seats allocated equals the size of the legislative body, then use the apportionment just calculated. Otherwise, choose a new value for D and try again.</blockquote>Example: In 1790, the U.S. had 15 states. For the purpose of allocating seats in the House of Representatives, the state populations were as follows:
{| class="wikitable"
!State
!Population
|-
|Virginia
|630 560
|-
|Massachusetts
|475 327
|-
|Pennsylvania
|432 879
|-
|North Carolina
|353 523
|-
|New York
|331 589
|-
|Maryland
|278 514
|-
|Connecticut
|236 841
|-
|South Carolina
|206 236
|-
|New Jersey
|179 570
|-
|New Hampshire
|141 822
|-
|Vermont
|85 533
|-
|Georgia
|70 835
|-
|Kentucky
|68 705
|-
|Rhode Island
|68 446
|-
|Delaware
|55 540
|-
!Total
!3 615 920
|}
Suppose that there were to be 60 seats in the House.
If a divisor of 55 000 is used, the resulting apportionment is
{| class="wikitable"
!State
!Quotas
!Seats
!District size
!Rel. rep.
|-
|Virginia
|11.46
|11
|57 324
|1.0513
|-
|Massachusetts
|8.64
|8
|59 416
|1.0143
|-
|Pennsylvania
|7.87
|7
|61 840
|0.9745
|-
|North Carolina
|6.43
|6
|58 920
|1.0228
|-
|New York
|6.03
|6
|55 265
|1.0905
|-
|Maryland
|5.06
|5
|55 703
|1.0819
|-
|Connecticut
|4.31
|4
|59 210
|1.0178
|-
|South Carolina
|3.75
|3
|68 745
|0.8766
|-
|New Jersey
|3.26
|3
|59 857
|1.0068
|-
|New Hampshire
|2.58
|2
|70 911
|0.8499
|-
|Vermont
|1.56
|1
|85 533
|0.7046
|-
|Georgia
|1.29
|1
|70 835
|0.8508
|-
|Kentucky
|1.25
|1
|68 705
|0.8772
|-
|Rhode Island
|1.24
|1
|68 446
|0.8805
|-
|Delaware
|1.01
|1
|55 540
|1.0851
|-
!Total
!65.74
!60
|}
<br />
[[Category:Party list theory]]
| |||