[EM] electoral methods - US and Europe

[Toplak Jurij]

Current Hill's method (as you correctly say, also called Huntington or
Huntington Hill method) has not been reinvented as far as I know. And, as
far as I know, it is not used anywhere in the world beside US. But it is one
of the better ones. It does not produce paradoxes. It slightly, very
slightly favors small parties (small states in US) (according to Balinski,
75).


Forest Simmons wrote:
>
> How about the current US method, the Huntington Hill method.  What do the
> Europeans call it? Or is it still in the future?
>
> I'm sure that if Bush stays in power long enough, the rest of the world
> will be made over in our image [the image of the beast?] including the
> inch, foot, yard, pound, fluid ounce, bushel, peck, etc.
>
> Forest
>
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Toplak Jurij wrote:
>
> > I am finishing an article on apportionment/seat allocation and I would
like to make some things clear. Please correct me if I am wrong in any of
the facts below. I also would apreciate any comment on this, because I find
it quite strange.
> >
> > I understand that in 19th century European scientists were not aware of
American research. But what really surprises me is that in 1990 European
research and even American Political Science research did not know (at list
they don't cite it) that it has all been invented already. Therefore:
> >
> > 1. Jefferson Method (1791) was reinvented in Europe by Victor D'Hondt
(1878).
> > 2. Hamilton Method (1791) was reinvented in Europe by Hare.
> > 3. Webster Method (1832) was reinvented in Europe by Saint-Lague.
> > 4. The discussion about the "most proportional" method followed in
Europe, too, and...
> >
> > 5. American National Academy of Sciences in 1920 concuded that none of
the methods is "most" proportional, because it all depends on how we measure
the discrepancies from ideal proportionality.
> > European research came to exactly same conclusion around 1985-1991
without even mentioning the one from 1920.
> > (see Gallagher (1991). Proportionality, Disproportionality and Electoral
Systems. Electoral Studies 10:1, 33-51. Something also Lijphard (1985)The
Field of Electoral Systems Research: A Critical Survey. Electoral Studies
4:1, 3-14).
> >
> > I'll be grateful for any comments.
> >
> > Jure