Sainte-Laguë method: Difference between revisions
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) (WP template) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
(This is just an article stub) |
(This is just an article stub) |
||
Sainte-Laguë works like [[D'Hondt method]], except that you use divisors 1, 3, 5, 7, ... instead of 1, 2, 3, 4, ... |
Webster/Sainte-Laguë works like [[D'Hondt method]], except that you use divisors 1, 3, 5, 7, ... instead of 1, 2, 3, 4, ... |
||
In the modified Sainte-Laguë method, the first divisor is modified to 1.4. The sequence of divisors is then 1.4, 3, 5, 7, ... |
In the modified Sainte-Laguë method, the first divisor is modified to 1.4. The sequence of divisors is then 1.4, 3, 5, 7, ... |
||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
There is a longer article on Wikipedia on the same subject. |
There is a longer article on Wikipedia on the same subject. |
||
== Notes == |
|||
Webster, unlike D'Hondt, doesn't guarantee that a majority of voters will get at least half of the seats.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://userpages.umbc.edu/~nmiller/RESEARCH/NRMILLER.PCS2013.pdf|title=ELECTION INVERSIONS |
|||
UNDER PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION|last=|first=|date=|website=|page=16|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=}}</ref> |
|||
{| class="wikitable" |
|||
|+35-seat example |
|||
!Party |
|||
!Votes |
|||
!Votes % |
|||
!2nd-to-last round seats |
|||
!2nd-to-last round divisors |
|||
!Final seats |
|||
!Final divisors |
|||
!Seats % |
|||
|- |
|||
|A |
|||
|'''503''' |
|||
|'''50.3%''' |
|||
|16 |
|||
|15.2424 (503/33) |
|||
|17 |
|||
|14.3714 (503/35) |
|||
|'''48.57%''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|B |
|||
|304 |
|||
|30.4% |
|||
|10 |
|||
|14.4762 (304/21) |
|||
|11 |
|||
|13.2174 (304/23) |
|||
|31.43% |
|||
|- |
|||
|C |
|||
|193 |
|||
|19.3% |
|||
|6 |
|||
|14.8461 (193/15) |
|||
|7 |
|||
|12.8666 (193/15) |
|||
|20% |
|||
|- |
|||
|Total seats awarded |
|||
| |
|||
| |
|||
|32 |
|||
| |
|||
|35 |
|||
| |
|||
| |
|||
|} |
|||
If D'Hondt had been used, the final divisor would've been 27.944, with (results calculated by rounding down to the nearest number) Party A getting 18 seats out of 35, a 51.42% majority (503/27.944), B 10 seats (304/27.944), and C 6 seats. |
|||
[[Category:Party list theory]] |
[[Category:Party list theory]] |
Revision as of 00:18, 24 March 2020
(This is just an article stub)
Webster/Sainte-Laguë works like D'Hondt method, except that you use divisors 1, 3, 5, 7, ... instead of 1, 2, 3, 4, ...
In the modified Sainte-Laguë method, the first divisor is modified to 1.4. The sequence of divisors is then 1.4, 3, 5, 7, ...
The modified Sainte-Laguë method is used for elections to the Danish parliament.
There is a longer article on Wikipedia on the same subject.
Notes
Webster, unlike D'Hondt, doesn't guarantee that a majority of voters will get at least half of the seats.[1]
Party | Votes | Votes % | 2nd-to-last round seats | 2nd-to-last round divisors | Final seats | Final divisors | Seats % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | 503 | 50.3% | 16 | 15.2424 (503/33) | 17 | 14.3714 (503/35) | 48.57% |
B | 304 | 30.4% | 10 | 14.4762 (304/21) | 11 | 13.2174 (304/23) | 31.43% |
C | 193 | 19.3% | 6 | 14.8461 (193/15) | 7 | 12.8666 (193/15) | 20% |
Total seats awarded | 32 | 35 |
If D'Hondt had been used, the final divisor would've been 27.944, with (results calculated by rounding down to the nearest number) Party A getting 18 seats out of 35, a 51.42% majority (503/27.944), B 10 seats (304/27.944), and C 6 seats.
- ↑ "ELECTION INVERSIONS UNDER PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION" (PDF). p. 16. line feed character in
|title=
at position 20 (help)