Largest remainder method: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) (WP template) |
m (Minor cleanup) |
||
| Line 15: | 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 25: | 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> |
||