Content deleted Content added
→External links: See Wikifunction method |
Rescuing 3 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.9.5 |
||
| (12 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Short description|Method for allocating seats in parliaments}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=June 2023}}
The '''D'Hondt method''',{{efn|English: {{IPAc-en|d|ə|ˈ|h|ɒ|n|t}} {{respell|də|HONT}}, {{IPA|nl|tɔnt|lang|small=no}}, {{IPA|fr|dɔ̃t|lang|small=no}}. The name ''D'Hondt'' is sometimes spelt as ''d'Hondt''. Notably, it is customary in the Netherlands to write such surnames with a lower-case ''d'' when preceded by the forename: thus ''Victor d'Hondt'' (with a small ''d''), while the surname all by itself would be ''D'Hondt'' (with a capital ''D''). However, in Belgium it is always capitalized, hence: ''Victor D'Hondt''.}} also called the '''Jefferson method''' or the '''greatest divisors method''', is an [[Apportionment (politics)|apportionment method]] for allocating seats in parliaments among [[federal states]], or in [[proportional representation]] among political parties. It belongs to the class of [[highest averages method|highest-averages methods]]. Compared to ideal proportional representation, the D'Hondt method reduces somewhat the political fragmentation for smaller [[electoral district]] sizes,<ref name=":0"/> where it favors larger political parties over small parties.<ref name="Seat biases"/>
Line 87 ⟶ 86:
|}
While in this example, parties B, C, and D formed a coalition against Party A
{| class="wikitable"
! Round <br/>(1 seat per round)
Line 207 ⟶ 206:
The Jefferson and the D'Hondt methods are equivalent. They always give the same results, but the methods of presenting the calculation are different.
The method was first described in 1792 by Statesman and future US President [[Thomas Jefferson]], in a letter to [[George Washington]] regarding the apportionment of seats in the [[United States House of Representatives]] pursuant to the [[1790 United States
{{blockquote|For representatives there can be no such common ratio, or divisor which ... will divide them exactly without a remainder or fraction. I answer then ... that representatives [must be divided] as nearly as the nearest ratio will admit; and the fractions must be neglected.}}
Line 242 ⟶ 241:
| issn = 0038-0288
}}
</ref> [[Hungary]] (5% for single party, 10% for two-party coalitions, 15% for coalitions of 3 or more parties) and [[Belgium]] (5%, on regional basis). In the [[Netherlands]], a party must win enough votes for one strictly proportional full seat (note that this is not necessary in plain D'Hondt), which with 150 seats in the lower chamber gives an effective threshold of 0.67%. In [[Estonia]], candidates receiving the simple quota in their electoral districts are considered elected, but in the second (district level) and third round of counting (nationwide, modified D'Hondt method) mandates are awarded only to candidate lists receiving more than the threshold of 5% of the votes nationally. The vote threshold simplifies the process of seat allocation and discourages fringe parties (those that are likely to gain very few votes) from competing in the elections. Obviously, the higher the vote threshold, the fewer the parties that will be represented in parliament.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://faculty.georgetown.edu/kingch/Electoral_Systems.htm|title=Electoral Systems|first=Charles|last=King|website=Prof. King’s Teaching and Learning Resources|access-date=2018-05-05|archive-date=13 May 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180513092015/http://faculty.georgetown.edu/kingch/Electoral_Systems.htm|url-status=dead}}</ref>
The method can cause a ''natural threshold''.<ref>{{Cite report |author=Venice Commission |date=2008 |title=Comparative report on thresholds and other features of electoral systems which bar parties from access to parliament |url=http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2008)037-e |publisher=Council of Europe |access-date=February 14, 2016 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Gallagher |first1=Michael |last2=Mitchell |first2=Paul |date=2005 |title=The Politics of Electoral Systems |chapter-url=http://www.blogary.ro/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/The_Politics_of_Electoral_Systems.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151010090047/http://www.blogary.ro/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/The_Politics_of_Electoral_Systems.pdf |archive-date=2015-10-10 |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |chapter=Appendix C: Effective threshold and effective magnitude |isbn=9780199257560}}</ref> It depends on the number of seats that are allocated with the D'Hondt method. In [[
In [[Croatia]], the official threshold is 5% for parties and coalitions. However, since the country is divided into 10 voting districts with 14 elected representatives each, sometimes the threshold can be higher, depending on the number of votes of "fallen lists" (lists that do not receive at least 5%). If many votes are lost in this manner, a list that gets 5% will still get a seat, whereas if there is a small number votes for parties that do not pass the threshold, the actual ("natural") threshold is close to 7.15%.
Some systems allow parties to associate their lists together into a single "cartel" in order to overcome the threshold, while some systems set a separate threshold for such cartels. Smaller parties often form pre-election coalitions to make sure they get past the election threshold creating a [[coalition government]]. In the Netherlands, cartels (''lijstverbindingen'') (until 2017, when they were abolished) could not be used to overcome the threshold, but they do influence the distribution of remainder seats; thus, smaller parties can use them to get a chance which is more like that of the big parties.
Line 252 ⟶ 251:
==Variations==
In some cases such as the [[Elections in the Czech Republic|Czech regional elections]], the first divisor (when the party has no seats so far, which is normally 1)
In 1989 and 1992, [[Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly|ACT Legislative Assembly]] elections were conducted by the [[Australian Electoral Commission]] using
▲In some cases such as the [[Elections in the Czech Republic|Czech regional elections]], the first divisor (when the party has no seats so far, which is normally 1) was raised to favour larger parties and eliminate small ones. In the Czech case, it is set to 1.42 (approximately <math>\sqrt{2}</math>, termed the Koudelka coefficient after the politician who introduced it).
▲In 1989 and 1992, [[Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly|ACT Legislative Assembly]] elections were conducted by the [[Australian Electoral Commission]] using the "modified d'Hondt" electoral system. The electoral system consisted of the d'Hondt system, the [[Australian Senate]] system of proportional representation, and various methods for preferential voting for candidates and parties, both within and across party lines.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.elections.act.gov.au/elections_and_voting/past_act_legislative_assembly_elections/modified_dhondt_electoral_system|title=Modified d'Hondt Electoral System|date=2015-01-06|website=elections.act.gov.au|language=en|access-date=2018-05-05}}</ref> The process involves 8 stages of scrutiny. ABC elections analyst [[Antony Green]] has described the modified d'Hondt system used in the ACT as a "monster ... that few understood, even electoral officials who had to wrestle with its intricacies while spending several weeks counting the votes".<ref>{{cite news |last1=Green |first1=Antony |title=Election Preview |url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/act/2020/guide/preview |access-date=16 April 2021 |work=ACT Votes 2020 |publisher=Australian Broadcasting Corporation}}</ref> It was replaced with the [[Hare-Clark]] system from 1995 onward.
▲Some systems allow parties to associate their lists together into a single [[Kartel (electoral alliance)|kartel]] in order to overcome the threshold, while some systems set a separate threshold for cartels. In a system of proportional representation in which the country is divided in multiple [[electoral district]]s, such as [[Belgium]] the [[Election threshold|threshold]] to obtain one seat can be very high (5% of votes since 2003), which also favors larger parties. Therefore, some parties pool their voters in order to gain more (or any) seats.
===Regional D'Hondt===
In most countries, seats for the national assembly are divided on a regional or even a provincial level. This means that seats are first divided between individual regions (or provinces) and are then allocated to the parties in each region separately (based on only the votes cast in the given region). The votes for parties that have not gained a seat at the regional level are thus discarded, so they do not aggregate at a national level. This means that parties which would have gained seats in a national distribution of seats may still end up with no seats as they did not gain enough votes in any region. This may also lead to skewed seat allocation at a national level, such as in Spain in 2011 where the [[People's Party (Spain)|People's Party]] gained an absolute majority in the [[Congress of Deputies (Spain)|Congress of Deputies]] with only 44% of the national vote.<ref name="gallagher"/> It may also skew results for small parties with broad appeal at a national level compared to small parties with a local appeal (e.g. nationalist parties). For instance, in the [[2008 Spanish general election]], [[United Left (Spain)]] gained 1 seat for 969,946 votes, whereas [[Convergence and Union]] (Catalonia) gained 10 seats for 779,425 votes.
===Modified d'Hondt electoral system===
The modified d'Hondt electoral system<ref>Australian Capital Territory Electoral Commission, [https://www.elections.act.gov.au/elections_and_voting/past_act_legislative_assembly_elections/modified_dhondt_electoral_system Modified d'Hondt Electoral System] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920173142/https://www.elections.act.gov.au/elections_and_voting/past_act_legislative_assembly_elections/modified_dhondt_electoral_system |date=20 September 2022 }}</ref> is a variant of the d'Hondt method with an [[electoral threshold]] for parties. Votes for parties below the electoral threshold are transferred to other candidates according to the [[single transferable voting]] method. This electoral system was used in [[1989 Australian Capital Territory general election|1989]] and [[1992 Australian Capital Territory election]]s.
== Usage by country ==
The D'Hondt method is used to elect the legislatures in [[Åland]], [[Albania]], [[Angola]], [[Argentina]], [[Armenia]], [[Aruba]], [[Austria]], [[Belgium]], [[Bolivia]], [[Brazil]], [[Burundi]], [[Cambodia]], [[Cape Verde]], [[Chile]], [[Colombia]], [[Croatia]], the [[Dominican Republic]], [[East Timor]], [[Estonia]], [[Fiji]], [[Finland]], [[Greenland]], [[Guatemala]], [[Hungary]] (in a [[Electoral system of Hungary|mixed system]]), [[Iceland]], [[Israel]], [[Italy]] (in a [[Mixed electoral system|mixed system]]), [[Japan]], [[Luxembourg]], [[Moldova]], [[Monaco]], [[Montenegro]], [[Mozambique]], [[Netherlands]], [[Nicaragua]], [[North Macedonia]], [[Paraguay]], [[Peru]], [[Poland]], [[Portugal]], [[Romania]], [[San Marino]], [[Serbia]], [[Slovenia]], [[Spain]], [[Switzerland]], [[Turkey]], [[Uruguay]] and [[Venezuela]].
In [[Denmark]] the D'Hondt method is used to elect part of the seats in the [[Folketing]] and the disproportionality of the D'Hondt method is corrected with leveling seats with [[Sainte-Laguë method]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=Danish Parliamentary Election Law|url=https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2020/1260}}</ref>{{Additional
==Notes==
| |||