Talk:Schulze STV: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
(Created page with "Schulze STV's party list case is not D'Hondt because Schulze STV passes the Droop proportionality criterion, which is quota-based. No divisor methods pass quota criteria, so S...") |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1:
Schulze STV's party list case is not D'Hondt because Schulze STV passes the Droop proportionality criterion, which is quota-based. No divisor methods pass quota criteria, so Schulze STV's party list case can't be any of them. Most likely, it is LR-Droop, but I haven't proven that. [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 10:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
: I'm not sure I understand, though I'll defer on this. DHondt guarantees every party will get at least as many seats as it has HB quotas, which also guarantees Droop proportionality, no?
To give an example, if you had a 2-seat election with 50 votes for Party A and 10 votes for every party from B through Z, then both Schulze STV and divisor methods give A both seats, whereas any largest remainders method will give A only one seat, since that is what the quota rule mandates. [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 16:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
| |||