Highest averages method

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Voting systems
Part of the Politics series
Single-winner Simple majoritarianism Plurality First-past-the-post Two-round Exhaustive ballot Preferential/ranked/ordinal systems Borda count Bucklin voting Condorcet methods (Copeland's · Dodgson's · Kemeny-Young · Minimax · Nanson's · Ranked pairs · Schulze) Coombs' method Instant-runoff (alternative vote) Contingent vote Oklahoma primary electoral system Cardinal/graded/rated systems Approval voting Majority Judgment Range voting
Multiple-winner Proportional representation Party-list (Open lists · Closed lists · Local lists · Mixed-member) Highest averages (D'Hondt · Sainte-Laguë) Largest remainder (Hare · Droop · Imperiali · Hagenbach-Bischoff) Single transferable vote (CPO-STV · Gregory · Schulze STV · Wright) Semi-proportional representation Cumulative voting Limited voting Single non-transferable vote Majority bonus system Additional member system Scorporo · Av+ Parallel voting Majoritarian representation Plurality-at-large Preferential block voting General ticket
Proxy voting Delegable voting Delegated voting
Random selection Demarchy Sortition Random ballot
Social choice theory Arrow's theorem Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem Voting system criteria Public choice theory (separate but related)
Politics portal
v t e

The highest averages method is the name for a variety of ways to allocate seats proportionally for representative assemblies with party list voting systems.

An alternative to this method is the largest remainder method, which uses a minimum quota which can be calculated in a number of ways.

Overview

The highest averages method requires the number of votes for each party to be divided successively by a series of divisors. This produces a table of quotients, or averages, with a row for each divisor and a column for each party. The $n$ 'th seat is allocated to the party whose column contains the $n$ 'th largest entry in this table, up to the total number of seats available. See examples below.

Individual methods

d'Hondt method

The most widely used is the d'Hondt formula, using the divisors 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. This system tends to give larger parties a slightly larger portion of seats than their portion of the electorate, and thus guarantees that a party with a majority of voters will get at least half of the seats.

Sainte-Laguë method

The Sainte-Laguë method divides the number of votes for each party by the odd numbers (1, 3, 5, 7 etc.). This system does not inherently favour larger parties over smaller (or vice versa), and may thus be considered "more proportional" than d'Hondt. - Alternatively, dividing the votes numbers by 0.5, 1.5, 2.5, 3.5 etc. yields the same result.

The Sainte-Laguë method is sometimes modified by increasing the first divisor to e.g. 1.4, to discourage very small parties gaining their first seat "too cheaply".

Imperiali

Another highest average method is called Imperiali (not to be confused with the Imperiali quota which is a Largest remainder method). The divisors are 2,3,4 etc. It is designed to disfavor the smallest parties, akin to a "cutoff", and is used only in Belgian municipal elections.

Huntington-Hill method

In the Huntington-Hill method, the divisors are given by ${\sqrt {n(n+1)}}$ , which makes sense only if every party is guaranteed at least one seat: this is used for allotting seats in the US House of Representatives to the states. (This is not an election, of course.)

Danish method

The Danish method is used in Danish elections to allocate each party's compensatory seats (or levelling seats) at the electoral province level to individual multi-member consistuencies. It divides the number of votes received by a party in a multi-member consistuency by the growing divsors (1, 4, 7, 10 etc.). Alternatively, dividing the votes numbers by 0.33, 1.33, 2.33, 3.33 etc. yields the same result. This system purposely attempts to allocate seats equally rather than proportionately.

Quota system

In addition to the procedure above, highest averages methods can be conceived of in a different way. For an election, a quota is calculated, usually the total number of votes cast divided by the number of seats to be allocated (the Hare quota). Parties are then allocated seats by determining how many quotas they have won, by dividing their vote totals by the quota. Where a party wins a fraction of a quota, this can be rounded down or rounded to the nearest whole number. Rounding down is equivalent to using the d'Hondt method, while rounding to the nearest whole number is equivalent to the Sainte-Laguë method. However, because of the rounding, this will not necessarily result in the desired number of seats being filled. In that case, the quota may be adjusted up or down until the number of seats after rounding is equal to the desired number.

The tables used in the d'Hondt or Sainte-Laguë methods can then be viewed as calculating the highest quota possible to round off to a given number of seats. For example, the quotient which wins the first seat in a d'Hondt calculation is the highest quota possible to have one party's vote, when rounded down, be greater than 1 quota and thus allocate 1 seat. The quotient for the second round is the highest divisor possible to have a total of 2 seats allocated, and so on.

Comparison between the d'Hondt and Sainte-Laguë methods

D'Hondt and Sainte-Laguë allow different strategies by parties looking to maximize their seat allocation. D'Hondt favors the merging of parties, while Sainte-Laguë favours neither merging nor splitting parties which expect to gain more than 1 or 2 seats. (It does favor splitting of very small parties – expecting to gain only 1-2 seats – into still smaller ones). Modified Saint-Laguë prevents this splitting advantage for small parties, while remaining impartial towards party size for all larger parties.

Examples

	d'Hondt method						Sainte-Laguë method (unmodified)
party	Yellow	White	Red	Green	Blue	Pink	Yellow	White	Red	Green	Blue	Pink
votes	47,000	16,000	15,900	12,000	6,000	3,100	47,000	16,000	15,900	12,000	6,000	3,100
mandate	quotient
1	47,000	16,000	15,900	12,000	6,000	3,100	47,000	16,000	15,900	12,000	6,000	3,100
2	23,500	8,000	7,950	6,000	3,000	1,550	15,667	5,333	5,300	4,000	2,000	1,033
3	15,667	5,333	5,300	4,000	2,000	1,033	9,400	3,200	3,180	2,400	1,200	620
4	11,750	4,000	3,975	3,000	1,500	775	6,714	2,857	2,271	1,714	875	443
5	9,400	3,200	3,180	2,400	1,200	620	5,222	1,778	1,767	1,333	667	333
6	7,833	2,667	2,650	2,000	1,000	517	4,273	1,454	1,445	1,091	545	282
seat	seat allocation
1	47,000						47,000
2	23,500							16,000
3		16,000							15,900
4			15,900				15,667
5	15,667									12,000
6				12,000			9,400
7	11,750						6,714
8	9,400										6,000
9		8,000						5,333
10			7,950						5,300

With the modification, the methods are initially more similar:

	d'Hondt method						Sainte-Laguë method (modified)
parties	Yellows	Whites	Reds	Greens	Blues	Pinks	Yellows	Whites	Reds	Greens	Blues	Pinks
votes	47,000	16,000	15,900	12,000	6,000	3,100	47,000	16,000	15,900	12,000	6,000	3,100
mandate	quotient
1	47,000	16,000	15,900	12,000	6,000	3,100	33,571	11,429	11,357	8,571	4,286	2,214
2	23,500	8,000	7,950	6,000	3,000	1,550	15,667	5,333	5,300	4,000	2,000	1,033
3	15,667	5,333	5,300	4,000	2,000	1,033	9,400	3,200	3,180	2,400	1,200	620
4	11,750	4,000	3,975	3,000	1,500	775	6,714	2,857	2,271	1,714	875	443
5	9,400	3,200	3,180	2,400	1,200	620	5,222	1,778	1,767	1,333	667	333
6	7,833	2,667	2,650	2,000	1,000	517	4,273	1,454	1,445	1,091	545	282
seat	seat allocation
1	47,000						33,571
2	23,500						15,667
3		16,000						11,429
4			15,900						11,357
5	15,667						9,400
6				12,000						8,571
7	11,750						6,714
8	9,400							5,333
9		8,000							5,300
10			7,950				5,222

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike; additional terms may apply for the media files.