Sainte-Laguë method: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) (WP template) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 3:
(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, ...
Line 10:
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]]
| |||