Content deleted Content added
Archives908 (talk | contribs) re add properly |
→Contradiction: new section |
||
Line 335:
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:
> 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.
Does D'Hondt minimize disproportionality—or not? -- [[User:Calion|Calion]] | [[User talk:Calion|Talk]] 14:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
| |||