Sainte-Laguë method: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
(Improve reference) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
== Notes == |
== Notes == |
||
Webster, unlike D'Hondt, doesn't guarantee that a majority of voters will get at least half of the seats.<ref>{{ |
Webster, unlike D'Hondt, doesn't guarantee that a majority of voters will get at least half of the seats.<ref name="Miller pp. 4–25">{{cite journal | last=Miller | first=Nicholas R. | title=Election Inversions under Proportional Representation | journal=Scandinavian Political Studies | publisher=Wiley | volume=38 | issue=1 | date=2014-12-05 | issn=0080-6757 | doi=10.1111/1467-9477.12038 | pages=4–25|url=https://userpages.umbc.edu/~nmiller/RESEARCH/NRMILLER.PCS2013.pdf|access-date=2020-03-24}}</ref> |
||
UNDER PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION|last=|first=|date=|website=|page=16|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=}}</ref> |
|||
{| class="wikitable" |
{| class="wikitable" |
||
|+35-seat example |
|+35-seat example |
||
| Line 62: | Line 61: | ||
|} |
|} |
||
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. |
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. |
||
== References == |
|||
<references /> |
|||
[[Category:Party list theory]] |
[[Category:Party list theory]] |
||
Revision as of 12:31, 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.
References
- ↑ Miller, Nicholas R. (2014-12-05). "Election Inversions under Proportional Representation" (PDF). Scandinavian Political Studies. Wiley. 38 (1): 4–25. doi:10.1111/1467-9477.12038. ISSN 0080-6757. Retrieved 2020-03-24.