[EM] Sainte-Lague vs d'Hondt for party list PR
juho4880 at yahoo.co.uk
Tue Jul 3 01:03:42 PDT 2012
On 3.7.2012, at 3.39, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
> > Yes, even in that small district, d'Hondt's bias will of course make things worse for small parties. But d'Hond't effect will be less in the small district, even as the small district problem makes things worse, in its own way, for small parties.
> You said:
> I simply summed up the expected D'Hondt biases of the multiple districts. The biases of small districts may easily sum up to multiple seats per party (= higher than with one large district).
> You're using "bias" with a different definition that its usual definition.
I used word "bias" in its general English meaning, in this case referring to how D'Hondt favours large parties.
> You said:
> splitting the districts in several small districts is probably strategically even better for them.
> Not if you're judging the benefit to them in terms of their s/v as compared to other parties' s/v.
If the party leaders are allowed to decide between getting nice s/v values or getting more seats, I guess they will choose the latter.
> In a small district, very small parties will be excluded, who wouldn't be excluded in an at-large allocation. But the big party will get more seats in the at-large allocation too.
Do you have an example (or a definition) where (in D'Hondt) large parties are likely to get more seats when a country is divided in larger districts?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Election-Methods