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

Juho Laatu juho4880 at yahoo.co.uk
Fri Jul 13 00:39:17 PDT 2012

```I think you are making the question quite complex and quite detailed. I also don't know if this is a reply to something specific that I said or just general observations on what kind of systems I might like.

One basic approach that I find quite decent is the idea that if one wants to have accurate proportional representation, then n% of the votes should lead to approximately n% of the seats. That in a way says something about the roots of the idea of proportional representation. Is this a helpful definition of my rough approach or should I say something more?

Juho

On 13.7.2012, at 2.50, Michael Ossipoff wrote:

> Juho:
>
> 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
> fair?
>
> 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
> .
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

```