[EM] Sainte-Lague vs d'Hondt for party list PR

[Michael Ossipoff]

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Juho Laatu <juho4880 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On 3.7.2012, at 14.44, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
>
>
>
> No, but it's an unquestionable fact. For two intervals between consecutive
> integers, n to n+1, and N to N+1, the bigger N is, in comparison to n, the
> greater is the factor by which the N interval party's expected s/v is
> greater than the n party's expected s/v.
>
> AT large, or in large districts, N can be greater than n by a greater
> amount, meaning that d'Hondt's bias is greater. That gives more seats to a
> large party.
>
>
> It seems that you are talking about one district whose population varies,
> while I talk about a country (with constant population) where the number of
> districts (with district based D'Hondt allocation) varies.
>

[endquote]

No. I'm talking about what you're talking about: Dividing a country into
large districts (or one big at-large "district"), rather than into small
districts.

With d'Hondt, a large party gains more s/v expectation (where the party is
equally likely to be anywhere in its n to N+1 interval) in comparison to
that of a small party, when the country is divided into larger districts or
at-large, instead of smaller districts.

You said:

Do you agree that in the latter case the best strategy of the largest
parties is to have small districts?

[endquote]

Certainly not.

Mike Ossipoff


> Juho
>
>
>
>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120704/92980d29/attachment-0003.htm>