Largest remainder method: Difference between revisions
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) (Add wikitable class to a bunch of tables using MassEditRegex) |
mNo edit summary |
||
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Wikipedia}} |
|||
The '''largest remainder method''' is one way of allocating seats proportionally for representative assemblies with [[Party-list proportional representation|party list]] [[voting system]]s. It is a contrast to the [[highest averages method]]. |
The '''largest remainder method''' is one way of allocating seats proportionally for representative assemblies with [[Party-list proportional representation|party list]] [[voting system]]s. It is a contrast to the [[highest averages method]]. |
||
Line 7: | Line 9: | ||
==Quotas== |
==Quotas== |
||
There are several possibilities for the quota. The most common are |
There are several possibilities for the quota. The most common are the [[Hare quota]] and the [[Droop quota]]. |
||
the [[Hare quota]] and the [[Droop quota]]. |
|||
The Hare Quota is defined as follows |
The Hare Quota is defined as follows |
||
Line 14: | Line 15: | ||
:<math>\frac{\mbox{total} \; \mbox{votes}}{\mbox{total} \; \mbox{seats}}</math> |
:<math>\frac{\mbox{total} \; \mbox{votes}}{\mbox{total} \; \mbox{seats}}</math> |
||
The [[Hamilton method|Hamilton method of apportionment]] is actually a largest-remainder method which is specifically defined as using the Hare Quota. It is used for legislative elections in [[Namibia]] and in the territory |
The [[Hamilton method|Hamilton method of apportionment]] is actually a largest-remainder method which is specifically defined as using the Hare Quota. It is used for legislative elections in [[Namibia]] and was used in the territory of Hong Kong. It was historically applied for [[congressional apportionment]] in the [[United States]] during the nineteenth century. |
||
The [[Droop quota]] is the integer part of |
The [[Droop quota]] is the integer part of |
||
Line 24: | Line 25: | ||
The Hare quota tends to be slightly more generous to less popular parties and the Droop quota to more popular parties. Which is more proportional depends on what measure of proportionality is used. |
The Hare quota tends to be slightly more generous to less popular parties and the Droop quota to more popular parties. Which is more proportional depends on what measure of proportionality is used. |
||
The |
The Imperiali quota |
||
:<math>\frac{\mbox{total} \; \mbox{votes}}{2+\mbox{total} \; \mbox{seats}}</math> |
:<math>\frac{\mbox{total} \; \mbox{votes}}{2+\mbox{total} \; \mbox{seats}}</math> |
||
is rarely |
is rarely used since it suffers from the problem that it may result in more candidates being elected than there are seats available; this will certainly happen if there are only two parties. In such a case, it is usual to increase the quota until the number of candidates elected is equal to the number of seats available, in effect changing the voting system to a highest averages system with the [[d'Hondt method|Jefferson apportionment formula]]. |
||
==Technical evaluation and paradoxes== |
==Technical evaluation and paradoxes== |
||
The largest remainder method is the only apportionment that satisfies the [[quota rule]]; in fact, it is designed to satisfy this criterion. However, it comes at the cost of [[ |
The largest remainder method is the only apportionment that satisfies the [[quota rule]]; in fact, it is designed to satisfy this criterion. However, it comes at the cost of [[Balinski–Young_theorem|paradoxical behaviour]]. The [[Alabama paradox]] is defined as when an increase in seats apportioned leads to decrease in the number of seats a certain party holds. Suppose we want to apportion 25 seats between 6 parties in the proportions 1500:1500:900:500:500:200. The two parties with 500 votes get three seats each. Now allocate 26 seats, and it will be found that the these parties get only two seats apiece. |
||
With 25 seats, we get: |
With 25 seats, we get: |
||
Line 35: | Line 37: | ||
<table class="wikitable" border="1"> |
<table class="wikitable" border="1"> |
||
<tr> |
<tr> |
||
< |
<th>Party</th> |
||
< |
<th>A</th> |
||
< |
<th>B</th> |
||
< |
<th>C</th> |
||
< |
<th>D</th> |
||
< |
<th>E</th> |
||
< |
<th>F</th> |
||
< |
<th>Total</th> |
||
</tr> |
</tr> |
||
<tr |
<tr> |
||
< |
<th>Votes</th> |
||
<td >1500</td> |
<td >1500</td> |
||
<td >1500</td> |
<td >1500</td> |
||
Line 54: | Line 56: | ||
<td >5100</td> |
<td >5100</td> |
||
</tr> |
</tr> |
||
<tr |
<tr> |
||
< |
<th>Seats</th> |
||
<td > </td> |
<td > </td> |
||
<td > </td> |
<td > </td> |
||
Line 64: | Line 66: | ||
<td >25</td> |
<td >25</td> |
||
</tr> |
</tr> |
||
<tr |
<tr> |
||
< |
<th>Hare Quota</th> |
||
<td > </td> |
<td > </td> |
||
<td > </td> |
<td > </td> |
||
Line 74: | Line 76: | ||
<td >204</td> |
<td >204</td> |
||
</tr> |
</tr> |
||
<tr |
<tr> |
||
< |
<th>Quotas Received</th> |
||
<td >7.35</td> |
<td >7.35</td> |
||
<td >7.35</td> |
<td >7.35</td> |
||
Line 84: | Line 86: | ||
<td > </td> |
<td > </td> |
||
</tr> |
</tr> |
||
<tr |
<tr> |
||
< |
<th>Automatic seats</th> |
||
<td >7</td> |
<td >7</td> |
||
<td >7</td> |
<td >7</td> |
||
Line 94: | Line 96: | ||
<td >22</td> |
<td >22</td> |
||
</tr> |
</tr> |
||
<tr |
<tr> |
||
< |
<th>Remainder</th> |
||
<td >0.35</td> |
<td >0.35</td> |
||
<td >0.35</td> |
<td >0.35</td> |
||
Line 104: | Line 106: | ||
<td > </td> |
<td > </td> |
||
</tr> |
</tr> |
||
<tr |
<tr> |
||
< |
<th>Surplus seats</th> |
||
<td >0</td> |
<td >0</td> |
||
<td >0</td> |
<td >0</td> |
||
Line 114: | Line 116: | ||
<td >3</td> |
<td >3</td> |
||
</tr> |
</tr> |
||
<tr |
<tr> |
||
< |
<th>Total Seats </th> |
||
<td >7</td> |
<td >7</td> |
||
<td >7</td> |
<td >7</td> |
||
Line 129: | Line 131: | ||
<table class="wikitable" border="1"> |
<table class="wikitable" border="1"> |
||
<tr> |
<tr> |
||
< |
<th>Party</th> |
||
< |
<th>A</th> |
||
< |
<th>B</th> |
||
< |
<th>C</th> |
||
< |
<th>D</th> |
||
< |
<th>E</th> |
||
< |
<th>F</th> |
||
< |
<th>Total</th> |
||
</tr> |
</tr> |
||
<tr |
<tr> |
||
< |
<th>Votes</th> |
||
<td >1500</td> |
<td >1500</td> |
||
<td >1500</td> |
<td >1500</td> |
||
Line 148: | Line 150: | ||
<td >5100</td> |
<td >5100</td> |
||
</tr> |
</tr> |
||
<tr |
<tr> |
||
< |
<th>Seats</th> |
||
<td > </td> |
<td > </td> |
||
<td > </td> |
<td > </td> |
||
Line 158: | Line 160: | ||
<td >26</td> |
<td >26</td> |
||
</tr> |
</tr> |
||
<tr |
<tr> |
||
< |
<th>Hare Quota</th> |
||
<td > </td> |
<td > </td> |
||
<td > </td> |
<td > </td> |
||
Line 168: | Line 170: | ||
<td >196</td> |
<td >196</td> |
||
</tr> |
</tr> |
||
<tr |
<tr> |
||
< |
<th>Quotas Received</th> |
||
<td >7.65</td> |
<td >7.65</td> |
||
<td >7.65</td> |
<td >7.65</td> |
||
Line 178: | Line 180: | ||
<td > </td> |
<td > </td> |
||
</tr> |
</tr> |
||
<tr |
<tr> |
||
< |
<th>Automatic seats</th> |
||
<td >7</td> |
<td >7</td> |
||
<td >7</td> |
<td >7</td> |
||
Line 188: | Line 190: | ||
<td >23</td> |
<td >23</td> |
||
</tr> |
</tr> |
||
<tr |
<tr> |
||
< |
<th>Remainder</th> |
||
<td >0.65</td> |
<td >0.65</td> |
||
<td >0.65</td> |
<td >0.65</td> |
||
Line 198: | Line 200: | ||
<td > </td> |
<td > </td> |
||
</tr> |
</tr> |
||
<tr |
<tr> |
||
< |
<th>Surplus seats</th> |
||
<td >1</td> |
<td >1</td> |
||
<td >1</td> |
<td >1</td> |
||
Line 208: | Line 210: | ||
<td >3</td> |
<td >3</td> |
||
</tr> |
</tr> |
||
<tr |
<tr> |
||
< |
<th>Total Seats </th> |
||
<td >8</td> |
<td >8</td> |
||
<td >8</td> |
<td >8</td> |
||
Line 227: | Line 229: | ||
<table class="wikitable" border="1"> |
<table class="wikitable" border="1"> |
||
<tr> |
<tr> |
||
< |
<th>Party</th> |
||
< |
<th>Yellows</th> |
||
< |
<th>Whites</th> |
||
< |
<th>Reds</th> |
||
< |
<th>Greens</th> |
||
< |
<th>Blues</th> |
||
< |
<th>Pinks</th> |
||
< |
<th>Total</th> |
||
</tr> |
</tr> |
||
<tr |
<tr> |
||
< |
<th>Votes</th> |
||
<td >47,000</td> |
<td >47,000</td> |
||
<td >16,000</td> |
<td >16,000</td> |
||
Line 246: | Line 248: | ||
<td >100,000</td> |
<td >100,000</td> |
||
</tr> |
</tr> |
||
<tr |
<tr> |
||
< |
<th>Seats</th> |
||
<td > </td> |
<td > </td> |
||
<td > </td> |
<td > </td> |
||
Line 256: | Line 258: | ||
<td >10</td> |
<td >10</td> |
||
</tr> |
</tr> |
||
<tr |
<tr> |
||
< |
<th>Hare Quota</th> |
||
<td > </td> |
<td > </td> |
||
<td > </td> |
<td > </td> |
||
Line 266: | Line 268: | ||
<td >10,000</td> |
<td >10,000</td> |
||
</tr> |
</tr> |
||
<tr |
<tr> |
||
< |
<th>Votes/Quota</th> |
||
<td >4.70</td> |
<td >4.70</td> |
||
<td >1.60</td> |
<td >1.60</td> |
||
Line 276: | Line 278: | ||
<td > </td> |
<td > </td> |
||
</tr> |
</tr> |
||
<tr |
<tr> |
||
< |
<th>Automatic seats</th> |
||
<td >4</td> |
<td >4</td> |
||
<td >1</td> |
<td >1</td> |
||
Line 286: | Line 288: | ||
<td >7</td> |
<td >7</td> |
||
</tr> |
</tr> |
||
<tr |
<tr> |
||
< |
<th>Remainder</th> |
||
<td >0.70</td> |
<td >0.70</td> |
||
<td >0.60</td> |
<td >0.60</td> |
||
Line 296: | Line 298: | ||
<td > </td> |
<td > </td> |
||
</tr> |
</tr> |
||
<tr |
<tr> |
||
< |
<th>Highest Remainder Seats </th> |
||
<td >1</td> |
<td >1</td> |
||
<td >1</td> |
<td >1</td> |
||
Line 306: | Line 308: | ||
<td >3</td> |
<td >3</td> |
||
</tr> |
</tr> |
||
<tr |
<tr> |
||
< |
<th>Total Seats </th> |
||
<td >5</td> |
<td >5</td> |
||
<td >2</td> |
<td >2</td> |
||
Line 321: | Line 323: | ||
<table class="wikitable" border="1"> |
<table class="wikitable" border="1"> |
||
<tr > |
<tr > |
||
< |
<th>Party</th> |
||
< |
<th>Yellows</th> |
||
< |
<th>Whites</th> |
||
< |
<th>Reds</th> |
||
< |
<th>Greens</th> |
||
< |
<th>Blues</th> |
||
< |
<th>Pinks</th> |
||
< |
<th>Total</th> |
||
</tr> |
</tr> |
||
<tr |
<tr> |
||
< |
<th>Votes</th> |
||
<td >47,000</td> |
<td >47,000</td> |
||
<td >16,000</td> |
<td >16,000</td> |
||
Line 340: | Line 342: | ||
<td >100,000</td> |
<td >100,000</td> |
||
</tr> |
</tr> |
||
<tr |
<tr> |
||
< |
<th>Seats</th> |
||
<td > </td> |
<td > </td> |
||
<td > </td> |
<td > </td> |
||
Line 350: | Line 352: | ||
<td >10</td> |
<td >10</td> |
||
</tr> |
</tr> |
||
<tr |
<tr> |
||
< |
<th>Droop Quota</th> |
||
<td > </td> |
<td > </td> |
||
<td > </td> |
<td > </td> |
||
Line 360: | Line 362: | ||
<td >9,091</td> |
<td >9,091</td> |
||
</tr> |
</tr> |
||
<tr |
<tr> |
||
< |
<th>Votes/Quota </th> |
||
<td >5.170</td> |
<td >5.170</td> |
||
<td >1.760</td> |
<td >1.760</td> |
||
Line 370: | Line 372: | ||
<td > </td> |
<td > </td> |
||
</tr> |
</tr> |
||
<tr |
<tr> |
||
< |
<th>Automatic seats </th> |
||
<td >5</td> |
<td >5</td> |
||
<td >1</td> |
<td >1</td> |
||
Line 380: | Line 382: | ||
<td >8</td> |
<td >8</td> |
||
</tr> |
</tr> |
||
<tr |
<tr> |
||
< |
<th>Remainder</th> |
||
<td >0.170</td> |
<td >0.170</td> |
||
<td >0.760</td> |
<td >0.760</td> |
||
Line 390: | Line 392: | ||
<td > </td> |
<td > </td> |
||
</tr> |
</tr> |
||
<tr |
<tr> |
||
< |
<th>Highest Remainder Seats </th> |
||
<td >0</td> |
<td >0</td> |
||
<td >1</td> |
<td >1</td> |
||
Line 400: | Line 402: | ||
<td >2</td> |
<td >2</td> |
||
</tr> |
</tr> |
||
<tr |
<tr> |
||
< |
<th>Total Seats </th> |
||
<td >5</td> |
<td >5</td> |
||
<td >2</td> |
<td >2</td> |
Latest revision as of 10:07, 9 May 2022
The largest remainder method is one way of allocating seats proportionally for representative assemblies with party list voting systems. It is a contrast to the highest averages method.
Method
The largest remainder method requires the number of votes for each party to be divided a quota representing the number of votes required for a seat, and this gives a notional number of seats to each, usually including an integer and either a fraction or alternatively a remainder. Each party receives seats equal to the integer. This will generally leave some seats unallocated: the parties are then ranked on the basis of the fraction or equivalently on the basis of the remainder, and parties with the larger fractions or remainders are each allocated one additional seat until all the seats have been allocated. This gives the method its name.
Quotas
There are several possibilities for the quota. The most common are the Hare quota and the Droop quota.
The Hare Quota is defined as follows
The Hamilton method of apportionment is actually a largest-remainder method which is specifically defined as using the Hare Quota. It is used for legislative elections in Namibia and was used in the territory of Hong Kong. It was historically applied for congressional apportionment in the United States during the nineteenth century.
The Droop quota is the integer part of
and is applied in elections in South Africa.
The Hare quota tends to be slightly more generous to less popular parties and the Droop quota to more popular parties. Which is more proportional depends on what measure of proportionality is used.
The Imperiali quota
is rarely used since it suffers from the problem that it may result in more candidates being elected than there are seats available; this will certainly happen if there are only two parties. In such a case, it is usual to increase the quota until the number of candidates elected is equal to the number of seats available, in effect changing the voting system to a highest averages system with the Jefferson apportionment formula.
Technical evaluation and paradoxes
The largest remainder method is the only apportionment that satisfies the quota rule; in fact, it is designed to satisfy this criterion. However, it comes at the cost of paradoxical behaviour. The Alabama paradox is defined as when an increase in seats apportioned leads to decrease in the number of seats a certain party holds. Suppose we want to apportion 25 seats between 6 parties in the proportions 1500:1500:900:500:500:200. The two parties with 500 votes get three seats each. Now allocate 26 seats, and it will be found that the these parties get only two seats apiece.
With 25 seats, we get:
Party | A | B | C | D | E | F | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Votes | 1500 | 1500 | 900 | 500 | 500 | 200 | 5100 |
Seats | 25 | ||||||
Hare Quota | 204 | ||||||
Quotas Received | 7.35 | 7.35 | 4.41 | 2.45 | 2.45 | 0.98 | |
Automatic seats | 7 | 7 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 22 |
Remainder | 0.35 | 0.35 | 0.41 | 0.45 | 0.45 | 0.98 | |
Surplus seats | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
Total Seats | 7 | 7 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 25 |
With 26 seats, we have:
Party | A | B | C | D | E | F | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Votes | 1500 | 1500 | 900 | 500 | 500 | 200 | 5100 |
Seats | 26 | ||||||
Hare Quota | 196 | ||||||
Quotas Received | 7.65 | 7.65 | 4.59 | 2.55 | 2.55 | 1.02 | |
Automatic seats | 7 | 7 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 23 |
Remainder | 0.65 | 0.65 | 0.59 | 0.55 | 0.55 | 0.02 | |
Surplus seats | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
Total Seats | 8 | 8 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 26 |
Examples
These examples take an election to allocate 10 seats where there are 100,000 votes.
Hare quota
Party | Yellows | Whites | Reds | Greens | Blues | Pinks | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Votes | 47,000 | 16,000 | 15,800 | 12,000 | 6,100 | 3,100 | 100,000 |
Seats | 10 | ||||||
Hare Quota | 10,000 | ||||||
Votes/Quota | 4.70 | 1.60 | 1.58 | 1.20 | 0.61 | 0.31 | |
Automatic seats | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
Remainder | 0.70 | 0.60 | 0.58 | 0.20 | 0.61 | 0.31 | |
Highest Remainder Seats | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
Total Seats | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 10 |
Droop quota
Party | Yellows | Whites | Reds | Greens | Blues | Pinks | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Votes | 47,000 | 16,000 | 15,800 | 12,000 | 6,100 | 3,100 | 100,000 |
Seats | 10 | ||||||
Droop Quota | 9,091 | ||||||
Votes/Quota | 5.170 | 1.760 | 1.738 | 1.320 | 0.671 | 0.341 | |
Automatic seats | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 8 |
Remainder | 0.170 | 0.760 | 0.738 | 0.320 | 0.671 | 0.341 | |
Highest Remainder Seats | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
Total Seats | 5 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 10 |