Highest averages method: Difference between revisions
m
no edit summary
imported>WikipediaBot m (importing text from Wikipedia) |
mNo edit summary |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Wikipedia}}
The '''highest averages method''' is one way of allocating seats proportionally for representative assemblies with [[Party-list proportional representation|party list]] [[voting systems]].
Line 402 ⟶ 404:
</table>
== Notes ==
Highest-averages methods in some sense simulate [[Vote management|vote management]], whereas highest-remainder methods do not. Example: If there are two seats, with Party A getting 50 votes, and Parties B through Z each getting 10 votes, then most highest-averages methods give Party A both seats, because they can put 25 votes into both seats, whereas any other party can at most put 10 votes into even one seat. Highest-remainder methods would generally give Party A one seat, but then give one of Parties B through Z the second seat; this is because the Hare quota (and even Droop quota) far exceed Party A's 50 votes, therefore all of Party A's votes would be "spent", leaving only Parties B through Z with any votes (in a tie, actually) to take the second seat.
[[Category:Voting systems]]▼
A common misconception is that only [[Largest remainder method|largest remainder methods]] pass any kind of [[quota]]-related criteria. In reality, while all highest averages methods fail the [[Quota rule|quota rule]] (i.e. a party can theoretically get more seats than would seem fair), many do guarantee a minimum number of seats a party will win based on its number of quotas of votes. For example, [[D'Hondt]] guarantees that in the [[Party list case|party list case]], a party will win at least as many seats as it has [[Hagenbach-Bischoff quota|Hagenbach-Bischoff quotas]].
[[Category:Apportionment methods]]
[[Category:Adjustable-proportionality voting methods]]
{{fromwikipedia}}
| |||