Largest remainder method

Voting systems
Part of the Politics series
Plurality/Majoritarian Simple majoritarianism Limited voting Single non-transferable vote 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 Proportional approval voting Sequential proportional approval voting Satisfaction approval voting Majority judgment Range voting
Proportional Representation Party-list (Open lists, Closed lists, Local lists) Highest averages (D'Hondt, Sainte-Laguë) Largest remainder (Hare, Droop, Imperiali, Hagenbach-Bischoff) Single transferable vote (CPO-STV, Gregory, Schulze STV, Wright)
Mixed-Member Mixed-member proportional Majority bonus system Additional member system Scorporo, Av+ Parallel voting Majoritarian representation Plurality-at-large Preferential block voting General ticket
Other Proxy voting Delegable voting Delegated voting Random selection Sortition Random ballot Social choice theory Arrow's theorem Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem Voting system criteria Public choice theory (separate but related) Multiple Ballot Voting Cumulative voting
Politics portal

The largest remainder method (also known as Hare-Niemeyer method or as Vinton's method^[1]) is one way of allocating seats proportionally for representative assemblies with party list voting systems. It contrasts with the highest averages method.

Method

The largest remainder method requires the numbers of votes for each party to be divided by a quota representing the number of votes required for a seat (i.e. usually the total number of votes cast divided by the number of seats, or some similar formula). The result for each party will usually consist of an integer part plus a fractional remainder. Each party is first allocated a number of seats equal to their integer. This will generally leave some seats unallocated: the parties are then ranked on the basis of the fractional remainders, and the parties with the largest remainders are each allocated one additional seat until all the seats have been allocated. This gives the method its name.

Quotas

There are several possibilities for the quota. The most common are: the Hare quota and the Droop quota.

The Hare (or simple) Quota is defined as follows

\frac{\mbox{total} \; \mbox{votes}}{\mbox{total} \; \mbox{seats}}

The Hamilton method of apportionment is actually a largest-remainder method which uses the Hare Quota. It is named after Alexander Hamilton, who invented the largest-remainder method in 1792. It was first adopted to apportion the U.S. House of Representatives every two years between 1852 and 1900. It is used for legislative elections in Russia (with a 7% exclusion threshold since 2007), Ukraine (5% threshold), Tunisia,^[2] Namibia and Hong Kong.

The Droop quota is the integer part of

1+\frac{\mbox{total} \; \mbox{votes}}{1+\mbox{total} \; \mbox{seats}}

and is applied in elections in South Africa. The Hagenbach-Bischoff quota is virtually identical, being

\frac{\mbox{total} \; \mbox{votes}}{1+\mbox{total} \; \mbox{seats}}

either used as a fraction or rounded up.

The Hare quota tends to be slightly more generous to less popular parties and the Droop quota to more popular parties, and can arguably be considered more proportional than Droop quota^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7] although it is more likely to give fewer than half the seats to a list with more than half the vote.

The Imperiali quota

\frac{\mbox{total} \; \mbox{votes}}{2+\mbox{total} \; \mbox{seats}}

is rarely used since it suffers from the defect that it might result in more seats being allocated than there are available (this can also occur with the Hagenbach-Bischoff quota but it is very unlikely, and it is impossible with the Hare and Droop quotas). This will certainly happen if there are only two parties. In such a case, it is usual to increase the quota until the number of candidates elected is equal to the number of seats available, in effect changing the voting system to the Jefferson apportionment formula (see D'Hondt method).

Examples

These examples take an election to allocate 10 seats where there are 100,000 votes.

Hare quota

Party	Yellows	Whites	Reds	Greens	Blues	Pinks	Total
Votes	47,000	16,000	15,800	12,000	6,100	3,100	100,000
Seats							10
Hare Quota							10,000
Votes/Quota	4.70	1.60	1.58	1.20	0.61	0.31
Automatic seats	4	1	1	1	0	0	7
Remainder	0.70	0.60	0.58	0.20	0.61	0.31
Highest Remainder Seats	1	1	0	0	1	0	3
Total Seats	5	2	1	1	1	0	10

Droop quota

Party	Yellows	Whites	Reds	Greens	Blues	Pinks	Total
Votes	47,000	16,000	15,800	12,000	6,100	3,100	100,000
Seats							10+1=11
Droop Quota							9,091
Votes/Quota	5.170	1.760	1.738	1.320	0.671	0.341
Automatic seats	5	1	1	1	0	0	8
Remainder	0.170	0.760	0.738	0.320	0.671	0.341
Highest Remainder Seats	0	1	1	0	0	0	2
Total Seats	5	2	2	1	0	0	10

Pros and cons

It is relatively easy for a voter to understand how the largest remainder method allocates seats. The Hare quota gives an advantage to smaller parties while the Droop quota favours larger parties.^[8] However, whether a list gets an extra seat or not may well depend on how the remaining votes are distributed among other parties: it is quite possible for a party to make a slight percentage gain yet lose a seat if the votes for other parties also change. A related feature is that increasing the number of seats may cause a party to lose a seat (the so-called Alabama paradox). The highest averages methods avoid this latter paradox but since no apportionment method is entirely free from paradox,^[9] they introduce others like quota violation.^[10]

Technical evaluation and paradoxes

The largest remainder method is the only apportionment that satisfies the quota rule; in fact, it is designed to satisfy this criterion. However, it comes at the cost of paradoxical behaviour. The Alabama paradox is exhibited when an increase in seats apportioned leads to a decrease in the number of seats allocated to a certain party. Suppose 25 seats are to be apportioned between six parties with votes cast in the proportions 1500:1500:900:500:500:200. The two parties with 500 votes get three seats each. Now allocate 26 seats, and it will be found that the these parties get only two seats apiece.

With 25 seats, we get:

Party	A	B	C	D	E	F	Total
Votes	1500	1500	900	500	500	200	5100
Seats							25
Hare Quota							204
Quotas Received	7.35	7.35	4.41	2.45	2.45	0.98
Automatic seats	7	7	4	2	2	0	22
Remainder	0.35	0.35	0.41	0.45	0.45	0.98
Surplus seats	0	0	0	1	1	1	3
Total Seats	7	7	4	3	3	1	25

With 26 seats, we have:

Party	A	B	C	D	E	F	Total
Votes	1500	1500	900	500	500	200	5100
Seats							26
Hare Quota							196
Quotas Received	7.65	7.65	4.59	2.55	2.55	1.02
Automatic seats	7	7	4	2	2	1	23
Remainder	0.65	0.65	0.59	0.55	0.55	0.02
Surplus seats	1	1	1	0	0	0	3
Total Seats	8	8	5	2	2	1	26

References

↑ Tannenbaum, Peter (2010). Excursions in Modern Mathematics. New York: Prentice Hall. p. 128. ISBN 978-0-321-56803-8.
↑ "2". Proposed Basic Law on Elections and Referendums - Tunisia (Non-official translation to English). International IDEA. 26 January 2014. p. 25. Retrieved 9 August 2015.
↑ http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/researchpublications/bp334-e.pdf
↑ http://polmeth.wustl.edu/polanalysis/vol/8/PA84-381-388.pdf
↑ http://www.dur.ac.uk/john.ashworth/EPCS/Papers/Suojanen.pdf
↑ http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sann2300/041102-ceg-electoral-consequences-lijphart.shtml
↑ http://janda.org/c24/Readings/Lijphart/Lijphart.html
↑ See for example the 2012 election in Hong Kong Island where the DAB ran as two lists and gained twice as many seats as the single-list Civic despite receiving fewer votes in total: New York Times report
↑ Balinski, Michel; H. Peyton Young (1982). Fair Representation: Meeting the Ideal of One Man, One Vote. Yale Univ Pr. ISBN 0-300-02724-9.
↑ Messner; et al. "RangeVoting: Apportionment and rounding schemes". Retrieved 2014-02-02.

External links

Hamilton method experimentation applet at cut-the-knot

Voting systems

Part of the Politics and Election series

Single-winner voting system	Approval voting Borda count Bucklin voting Contingent vote Coombs' method Copeland's method Exhaustive ballot First-past-the-post voting Instant-runoff voting Kemeny–Young method Simple majoritarianism Minimax Condorcet Nanson's method Plurality Positional voting system Range voting Ranked pairs Schulze method Two-round system

Proportional representation	Mixed-member Party-list Single transferable vote Schulze STV CPO-STV Highest averages method Sainte-Laguë D'Hondt Largest remainder method Alternative vote Plus Closed list Open list Overhang seat Underhang seat

Semi-proportional representation	Parallel voting Single non-transferable vote Cumulative voting Limited voting Proportional approval voting Sequential proportional approval voting Satisfaction approval voting

Usage	Table of voting systems by country

Voting system criterion	Condorcet criterion Condorcet loser criterion Consistency criterion Independence of clones Independence of irrelevant alternatives Independence of Smith-dominated alternatives Later-no-harm criterion Majority criterion Majority loser criterion Monotonicity criterion Mutual majority criterion Pareto efficiency Participation criterion Plurality criterion Resolvability criterion Reversal symmetry Smith criterion

Voting system quotas	Droop quota Hagenbach-Bischoff quota Hare quota Imperiali quota

Other	Ballot Vote counting system Election threshold First-preference votes Spoilt vote Sortition

Portal — Project

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Tuesday, September 01, 2015. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.