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

Michael Ossipoff email9648742 at gmail.com
Thu Jul 12 16:50:58 PDT 2012


Let me put it this way:

You like the Hare quota, calculated based on the preferred house-size.
Total votes divided by the preferred total number of seats.

If you like the Hare quota, then would you object to putting each
party's seats as close as possible to its number of Hare quotas?

If you object to that, then please tell why.

If you don't object to it:

Remember that that Hare quota was based on a preferred (but ultimately
not required) total number of seats for the parliament. Do you think
that if we had "preferred" a different number of seats, that would
somehow be less fair? ...that the resulting allocation would be less

If not, then you agree that the Hare quota isn't privileged as a divisor.

So, if you liked putting the parties' seats as close as possible to
their Hare quotas, the result of dividing their votes by the Hare
quota, then how could you not like, just as much, putting the parties'
seats as close as possible to the result of dividing their seats by
some other divisor? (We could call that other divisor the Hare quota,
based on some different preferred (but not required) house-size)

Mike Ossipoff

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list