Content deleted Content added
→Clarity: new section |
|||
| (46 intermediate revisions by 30 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Elections and Referendums}}
}}
__TOC__
==2004 Comments==
I don't understand how d'hondt system may be applied in open list system. In fact I believe this is not possible.
Line 4 ⟶ 12:
:I know for a fact that it is possible, because it is used in Finland. Each vote is give to <strong>a person</strong> who is always on <strong>a list</strong>. The number of elected candidates in a list is counted as in the closed list system. The people who get elected within a list are the ones who have got the most votes.
:Clarification on the issue of ranking candidates on an open-list:
Line 34 ⟶ 41:
I've changed it to d'Hondt, based on how it's spelled in official Northern Ireland legislation: [http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/peace/docs/agreement.htm]. That could be wrong, of course, so it can be reversed in that case. [[User:William Quill|William Quill]] ([[User talk:William Quill|talk]]) 12:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
== Why I've removed the image ==
Line 48 ⟶ 51:
: Then, it was not an example of applying d'Hondt, but of adding the resolts of havinf applyed d'Hondt several times... ---[[User:81.38.174.231|81.38.174.231]] 14:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
::Just add one more seat to the example in the article, and you'll see party B getting 4 seats, against the 3 seats that party A has.[[Special:Contributions/201.29.225.26|201.29.225.26]] ([[User talk:201.29.225.26|talk]]) 15:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
==Proportionality==
Line 77 ⟶ 81:
Starting with 2007 european parliament elections in Bulgaria, the d'Hondt method was changed in favor of [[Largest_remainder_method|Largest Reminder Method]]
[[User:AlexStanev|AlexStanev]] 12:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
== Removed text from article ==
: ''An important result of the method is that a single popular candidate can "draw with him" a lot of lesser-known party colleagues with few personal votes. Also, if the party colleagues with less support fail to pass the threshold, then the elected candidate also represents the failed candidates. For example, candidate B promises to eliminate the [[Dog licence|dog tax]], but is not elected. Then, the votes gained by B benefit party colleague A, who proposes the elimination of dog tax (although not compelled to do so), which was originally B's promise.''
I removed the above text from the article as it was uncited, and without some form of citation to explain it seemed to make no sense whatsover. Where do dog taxes come into this? And d'hondt is used in party list systems which, as far as I know, don't ever use individual candidate thresholds. If someone thinks it actually makes sense and can tidy it up, by all means reinsert it, but right now I have no earthly idea what it is the article was actually trying to say. - '''[[User:Chrism|Chrism]]''' ''[[User_talk:Chrism|would like to hear from you]]'' 02:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
: It seems to refer to [[single transferable vote]]. ?[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 03:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
It's not true for single transferable vote -- the other candidates have to get their own votes (even if they're lower down on the ballots of the popular candidate's voters). It seems instead to be referring to the open-ballot scheme discussed above as used in Finland. [[Special:Contributions/150.108.157.180|150.108.157.180]] ([[User talk:150.108.157.180|talk]]) 17:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
== An alternative interpretation of the D'Hont system ==
The D'Hont system is equivalent to the following statistical
criterion. If each party is a bin, and the (normalized to sum=1)
number of votes is the probability of a stone to fall in that bin,
then the distribution given by the D'Hont system gives the most
probable distribution of a given number of stones among the bins. For
instance, if there are 2 parties A and B, with 100, and 160 votes
respectively, and 4 seats. The D'Hont system predicts A=1 and B=3
seats. In the bin/stones analogy the probability of falling in bin A
is p(A)=0.38462 and p(B)=0.61538. Then the probability of falling 1
stone in A, and 3 in B is p(1,3)=pA*pB^3*4!/(1!*3!)=0.35853, whereas
for instance the probability of falling 2 in A and 2 in B is
p(2,2)=pA^2*pB^2*4!/(2!*2!)=0.33612. So that it is more likely to fall
3 stones in B an 1 in A, than falling 2 in A and 2 in B. In the same
way the other possibilities can be computed (A=0 B=4, A=3 B=1,...) and
the more likely is A=1, B=3. I can't give a mathematical demonstration
for this, but I wrote some Octave programs and tested on a huge number
of cases and in it was verified in all cases. I wonder if it is a
known fact. I know original research material is not suitable to
Wikipedia, but perhaps it is a well known property and someone can
point to a reference. [[User:Mariostorti|Mariostorti]] ([[User talk:Mariostorti|talk]]) 15:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
==Pronunciation==
Presumably - given the apostrophe - the correct pronunciation of d'Hondt is "Dont" and not "de Hont", although annoyingly the latter pronunciation is consistently used in Northern Ireland. Any sources on how it should be pronounced? [[User:Mooretwin|Mooretwin]] ([[User talk:Mooretwin|talk]]) 10:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
==Government Formation==
I'm going to wait a few days for objections first, but I'm liable to remove the paragraph on "government formation", seeing as how the process of government formation in parliamentary systems is entirely independent of the voting system. (If you wanted an relevant "government formation" aspect of d'Hondt, you could describe the assignement of ministry positions in the Northern Ireland agreement. That's not at all what the paragraph in the article refers to, though.) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/150.108.157.180|150.108.157.180]] ([[User talk:150.108.157.180|talk]]) 17:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I was going to raise the same issue. I quite agree, and personally (as a Finn) I find it vexing how the media in this country are trying to tell us this is how it works. Government formation is done through negotiations among the parties.--[[User:Rallette|Rallette]] ([[User talk:Rallette|talk]]) 12:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
== D'Hondt and Jefferson ==
''Applied to the above example of party lists, this extends as integers from 85,001 to 93,333''
The example has been changed.
85,001 and 93,333 refer to an older version of this page
Current example
{|class="wikitable"
!|| /1 || /2 || /3 || /4 || /5 || /6 || /7 || /8 || Seats won (*)
|-
|| Party A || '''100,000*''' || '''50,000*''' || '''33,333*''' || '''25,000*''' || 20,000 || 16,666 || 14,286 || 12,500
| align="center" | 4
|-
|| Party B || '''80,000*''' || '''40,000*''' || '''26,666*''' || 20,000 || 16,000 || 13,333 || 11,428 || 10,000
| align="center" | 3
|-
|| Party C || '''30,000*''' || 15,000 || 10,000 || 7,500 || 6,000 || 5,000 || 4,286 || 3,750
| align="center" | 1
|-
|| Party D || 20,000 || 10,000 || 6,666 || 5,000 || 4,000 || 3,333 || 2,857 || 2,500
| align="center" | 0
|}
See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=D%27Hondt_method&oldid=326714515
{| width="75%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"
|-----
| <div align="right"></div>
| <div align="center">'''Party A'''</div>
| <div align="center">'''Party B'''</div>
| <div align="center">'''Party C'''</div>
| <div align="center">'''Party D'''</div>
| <div align="center">'''Party E'''</div>
|-----
| <div align="left">'''Votes'''</div>
| <div align="center">340,000</div>
| <div align="center">280,000</div>
| <div align="center">160,000</div>
| <div align="center">60,000</div>
| <div align="center">40,000</div>
|-----
|| '''Percentage of votes'''
| align="center" | 38.6%
| align="center" | 31.8%
| align="center" | 18.2%
| align="center" | 6.8%
| align="center" | 4.5%
|-
| <div align="left">'''Seat 1'''</div>
| <div align="center"><span style="color:#FF0000;">340,000</span></div>
| <div align="center">280,000</div>
| <div align="center">160,000</div>
| <div align="center">60,000</div>
| <div align="center">40,000</div>
|-----
| <div align="left">'''Seat 2'''</div>
| <div align="center">170,000</div>
| <div align="center"><span style="color:#FF0000;">280,000</span></div>
| <div align="center">160,000</div>
| <div align="center">60,000</div>
| <div align="center">40,000</div>
|-----
| <div align="left">'''Seat 3'''</div>
| <div align="center"><span style="color:#FF0000;">170,000</span></div>
| <div align="center">140,000</div>
| <div align="center">160,000</div>
| <div align="center">60,000</div>
| <div align="center">40,000</div>
|-----
| <div align="left">'''Seat 4'''</div>
| <div align="center">113,333</div>
| <div align="center">140,000</div>
| <div align="center"><span style="color:#FF0000;">160,000</span></div>
| <div align="center">60,000</div>
| <div align="center">40,000</div>
|-----
| <div align="left">'''Seat 5'''</div>
| <div align="center">113,333</div>
| <div align="center"><span style="color:#FF0000;">140,000</span></div>
| <div align="center">80,000</div>
| <div align="center">60,000</div>
| <div align="center">40,000</div>
|-----
| <div align="left">'''Seat 6'''</div>
| <div align="center"><span style="color:#FF0000;">113,333</span></div>
| <div align="center">93,333</div>
| <div align="center">80,000</div>
| <div align="center">60,000</div>
| <div align="center">40,000</div>
|-----
| <div align="left">'''Seat 7'''</div>
| <div align="center">85,000</div>
| <div align="center"><span style="color:#FF0000;">93,333</span></div>
| <div align="center">80,000</div>
| <div align="center">60,000</div>
| <div align="center">40,000</div>
|-----
| <div align="left">'''Seat 8'''</div>
| <div align="center"><span style="color:#FF0000;">85,000</span></div>
| <div align="center">70,000</div>
| <div align="center">80,000</div>
| <div align="center">60,000</div>
| <div align="center">40,000</div>
|-----
| <div align="left">'''Seat 9'''</div>
| <div align="center">68,000</div>
| <div align="center">70,000</div>
| <div align="center"><span style="color:#FF0000;">80,000</span></div>
| <div align="center">60,000</div>
| <div align="center">40,000</div>
|-----
| <div align="left"></div>
| <div align="center"></div>
| <div align="center"></div>
| <div align="center"></div>
| <div align="center"></div>
| <div align="center"></div>
|-----
| <div align="left">'''Total Seats'''</div>
| <div align="center">'''4'''</div>
| <div align="center">'''3'''</div>
| <div align="center">'''2'''</div>
| <div align="center">'''0'''</div>
| <div align="center">'''0'''</div>
|-----
| <div align="left">'''Votes per Seat'''</div>
| <div align="center">85,000</div>
| <div align="center">93,333</div>
| <div align="center">80,000</div>
| <div align="center">N/A</div>
| <div align="center">N/A</div>
|-
|| '''Percentage of seats'''
| align="center" | 44.4%
| align="center" | 33.3%
| align="center" | 22.2%
| align="center" | 0.0%
| align="center" | 0.0%
|}
85,001 and 93,333 result from '''Votes per Seat 85,000 93,333''' <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/194.79.57.4|194.79.57.4]] ([[User talk:194.79.57.4|talk]]) 05:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Denmark, D'Hondt and Sainte-Laguë ==
I'm wondering whether Denmark should figure on both the list of countries using the [[D'Hondt method]] and the [[Sainte-Laguë method]]. Denmark uses both D'Hondt (135 seats) and Sainte-Laguë (40 seats) to (s)elect the 175 Danish members of the [[Folketing]] as documented by the link to the of the description of the Danish electoral system by the Danish ''Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Interior'' (note: As portfolios are often divided and combined, the relevant bit is the ''Interior'', whose civil servants are responsible the organisation of all elections in Denmark, though of course aided by municipal civil servants "on the ground"). I've posted this issue on the talkpage of the [[Sainte-Laguë method]] as well (section: ''"Denmark, D'Hondt and Sainte-Laguë - see the article on D'Hondt"''), but prefer any comments/discussions/pro et contra to be posted here so as to keep it simple.
: [[User:Mojowiha|Mojowiha]] ([[User talk:Mojowiha|talk]]) 09:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
== Example with 9 seats ==
I´d like to know what would happen if there are 9 seats instead of 8 in the example, because there´s a tie with 20000 <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/80.25.238.87|80.25.238.87]] ([[User talk:80.25.238.87|talk]]) 12:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
I wondered that, too, so I came over to Talk. I don't see anything in a quick Google search to suggest whether the 9th or 10th seats would go to Parties A, B, or D. I guess that an extension would have to be written in to the law, stating what would happen in the event of a tie. For example, perhaps the Largest Remainder Method takes over. In that case, Party A would have -0.09 remainder, Party B would have 0.13, and Party D would have 0.78. This is based on the new "true proportion" column values (9 seats instead of 8) and the number of seats already awarded to each party at this point. So if that rule was used, Party D would be awarded the seat, which seems fair to me.
Here's the table at the point of deciding who to award to next:
{|class="wikitable"
! '''''denominator''''' || /1 || /2 || /3 || /4 || /5 || /6 || /7 || /8 || Seats won (*) || True proportion || Remainder
|-
|| Party A || '''100,000*''' || '''50,000*''' || '''33,333*''' || '''25,000*''' || 20,000 || 16,666 || 14,286 || 12,500
| align="center" | '''4'''
| align="center" | 3.91
| align="center" | -0.09
|-
|| Party B || '''80,000*''' || '''40,000*''' || '''26,666*''' || 20,000 || 16,000 || 13,333 || 11,428 || 10,000
| align="center" | '''3'''
| align="center" | 3.13
| align="center" | 0.13
|-
|| Party C || '''30,000*''' || 15,000 || 10,000 || 7,500 || 6,000 || 5,000 || 4,286 || 3,750
| align="center" | '''1'''
| align="center" | 1.17
| align="center" | 0.17
|-
|| Party D || 20,000 || 10,000 || 6,666 || 5,000 || 4,000 || 3,333 || 2,857 || 2,500
| align="center" | '''0'''
| align="center" | 0.78
| align="center" | '''0.78*'''
|}
[[User:Myrkron|Myrkron]] ([[User talk:Myrkron|talk]]) 18:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
== External links modified ==
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[D'Hondt method]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=752976109 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090419131607/http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2005/Jun/croissantJun05.asp to http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2005/Jun/croissantJun05.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).
{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 13:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
== Allocation Example is NOT using d'Hondt ==
The initial description of the d'Hondt calculation is correct, stating, "s is the number of seats '''''that party''''' has been allocated so far, initially 0 for all parties."
But then continues, "The total votes cast for each party in the electoral district is divided, first by 1, then by 2, then 3." The Example grid that follows then uses this method, where ALL parties' vote totals are divided by the same divisor each round.
In d'Hondt, the divisor is only incremented for the '''winner''' of each round.
Ref: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_BRI(2016)580901
The older example on this talk page, with 9 seats and 5 parties, is a correct example.
When the correct d'Hondt method is applied to the current example, the same results are achieved, so this could be an alternate way of making the same calculation, but it's not d'Hondt and definitely does not agree with the equation at the top of the section.
[[User:Nlaslett|Nlaslett]] ([[User talk:Nlaslett|talk]]) 02:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I have updated it with a correct example. It was my first edit to Wikipedia so I apologise if there are any mistakes in formatting or anything.
--[[User:Taxi For Maicon|Taxi For Maicon]] ([[User talk:Taxi For Maicon|talk]]) 14:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
As already stated, not only is the Allocation section not using d'Hondt method (divisors), it is using the formula for a completely different Droop/Hagenbach-Bischoff method (quotas). This is unacceptable and needs to get fixed ASAP. Sources: Taagepera, R., & Shugart, M. S. (1989). Seats and votes: The effects and determinants of electoral systems. New Haven: Yale University Press. (p. 31); Nohlen, D. (1990). Wahlrecht und Parteiensystem. Opladen: Leske Verlag + Budrich GmbH. (p. 81); Lijphart, A. (1994) Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty-Seven Democracies, 1945-1990. New York: Oxford University Press. (p. 155-157, 192); Farrell, D. M. (1997) Comparing Electoral Systems. London: Prentice Hall/Harvester Wheatsheaf. (p. 62-64) <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/89.102.172.8|89.102.172.8]] ([[User talk:89.102.172.8#top|talk]]) 23:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Contradiction ==
This passage would seem to contradict itself:
<blockquote>The D'Hondt method minimizes the number of votes that need to be left aside so that the remaining votes are represented exactly proportionally. Only the D'Hondt method (and methods equivalent to it) minimizes this disproportionality. Empirical studies based on other, more popular concepts of disproportionality show that the D'Hondt method is one of the least proportional among the proportional representation methods.</blockquote>
Does D'Hondt minimize disproportionality—or not? -- [[User:Calion|Calion]] | [[User talk:Calion|Talk]] 14:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
== s and s ==
In the Procedure section, the algebraic symbol ''s'' is used first for the number of seats won so far by a party and then for the total number of seats to be assigned. Change one or the other, but to what? —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 05:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
== Clarity ==
This is a very unclear Wikipedia entry, apparently written for those who already are experts in the topic. [[Special:Contributions/119.18.0.19|119.18.0.19]] ([[User talk:119.18.0.19|talk]]) 21:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
| |||