Wikipedia

Talk:D'Hondt method: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Myrkron (talk | contribs)
56 edits
→Clarity: new section
 
(23 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown)
Line 1:
{{WikiProject Politicsbanner shell|class=startStart|importance=mid}}
{{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 8 ⟶ 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 171 ⟶ 174:
|-
| <div align="left">'''Seat 1'''</div>
| <div align="center"><fontspan colorstyle="color:#FF0000;">340,000</fontspan></div>
| <div align="center">280,000</div>
| <div align="center">160,000</div>
Line 179 ⟶ 182:
| <div align="left">'''Seat 2'''</div>
| <div align="center">170,000</div>
| <div align="center"><fontspan colorstyle="color:#FF0000;">280,000</fontspan></div>
| <div align="center">160,000</div>
| <div align="center">60,000</div>
Line 185 ⟶ 188:
|-----
| <div align="left">'''Seat 3'''</div>
| <div align="center"><fontspan colorstyle="color:#FF0000;">170,000</fontspan></div>
| <div align="center">140,000</div>
| <div align="center">160,000</div>
Line 194 ⟶ 197:
| <div align="center">113,333</div>
| <div align="center">140,000</div>
| <div align="center"><fontspan colorstyle="color:#FF0000;">160,000</fontspan></div>
| <div align="center">60,000</div>
| <div align="center">40,000</div>
Line 200 ⟶ 203:
| <div align="left">'''Seat 5'''</div>
| <div align="center">113,333</div>
| <div align="center"><fontspan colorstyle="color:#FF0000;">140,000</fontspan></div>
| <div align="center">80,000</div>
| <div align="center">60,000</div>
Line 206 ⟶ 209:
|-----
| <div align="left">'''Seat 6'''</div>
| <div align="center"><fontspan colorstyle="color:#FF0000;">113,333</fontspan></div>
| <div align="center">93,333</div>
| <div align="center">80,000</div>
Line 214 ⟶ 217:
| <div align="left">'''Seat 7'''</div>
| <div align="center">85,000</div>
| <div align="center"><fontspan colorstyle="color:#FF0000;">93,333</fontspan></div>
| <div align="center">80,000</div>
| <div align="center">60,000</div>
Line 220 ⟶ 223:
|-----
| <div align="left">'''Seat 8'''</div>
| <div align="center"><fontspan colorstyle="color:#FF0000;">85,000</fontspan></div>
| <div align="center">70,000</div>
| <div align="center">80,000</div>
Line 229 ⟶ 232:
| <div align="center">68,000</div>
| <div align="center">70,000</div>
| <div align="center"><fontspan colorstyle="color:#FF0000;">80,000</fontspan></div>
| <div align="center">60,000</div>
| <div align="center">40,000</div>
Line 273 ⟶ 276:
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">—&nbsp;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 concludeguess 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. [[User:Myrkron|Myrkron]] ([[User talk:Myrkron|talk]]) 18:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 
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">—&nbsp;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)
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:D%27Hondt_method"