The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
The highest averages method is one way of allocating seats proportionally for representative assemblies with party list voting systems. The highest averages method requires the number of votes for each party to be divided successively by a series of divisors, and seats are allocated to parties that secure the highest resulting quotient or average, up to the total number of seats available. The most widely used is the d'Hondt formula, using the divisors 1,2,3,4... The Sainte-Laguë method divides the votes with odd numbers (1,3,5,7 etc). The Sainte-Laguë method can also be modified, for instance by the replacement of the first divisor by 1.4, which in small constituencies has the effect of prioritizing proportionality for larger parties over smaller ones at the allocation of the first few seats. Another highest average method is called Imperiali (not to be confused with the Imperiali quota which is a Largest remainder method). The divisors are 2,3,4 etc. It is only used in Belgian municipal elections.
The highest averages method requires the number of votes for each party to be divided successively by a series of divisors, and seats are allocated to parties that secure the highest resulting quotient or average, up to the total number of seats available. The most widely used is the d'Hondt formula, using the divisors 1,2,3,4... The Sainte-Laguë method divides the votes with odd numbers (1,3,5,7 etc). The Sainte-Laguë method can also be modified, for instance by the replacement of the first divisor by 1.4, which in small constituencies has the effect of prioritizing proportionality for larger parties over smaller ones at the allocation of the first few seats.
Another highest average method is called Imperiali (not to be confused with the Imperiali quota which is a Largest remainder method). The divisors are 2,3,4 etc. It is only used in Belgian municipal elections.
Combining the above with ordered party lists where the voters cannot affect the order of candidates on a list, it is about the worst proportional election system which could have been introduced. It is however better than first past the post.
How does the Swedish electoral system decide which candidate on a list is elected? Is it up to the parties or do the voters decide the order of individual candidate as well as choosing a party?
For example, one can mark number 18 and that one will then be prioritised. A candidate needs like 10 % of the votes that a certain party gets in a certain area to override the party list order. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
It should be noted that fixed (and rather high) limit in percentage of the votes has produced some odd results. Consider if one party takes one seat in an area and another takes ten. It is then more likely that the small partys one seat will be filled by someone who has got marked up then it is that the big party gets any candidate marked up. At least this has been the experience in Sweden. How come? Simple, because the limit is high it is seldom candidates reach above it and when there are many prominent candidates (like in the big party) it splits the marks over many candidates.
I would prefer the finnish system were (IIRC) that you place your vote on a candidate, that vote also falls to respective candidates party, seats are distributed to parties according to PR and then party seats are filled with candidates in accordance to number of votes.
But mostly I prefer to have a good and strong referendum instrument like in Switzerland. Then I guess what way you chose the parliament would not matter as much. Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
Great Britain (not Northern Ireland) uses the d'Hondt system in European elections, with small seat magnitude constituencies (3-10 seats) and no attempt at proportionality on the national level. Combining the above with ordered party lists where the voters cannot affect the order of candidates on a list, it is about the worst proportional election system which could have been introduced. It is however better than first past the post.
Currently my preferred voting system is an additional-member system with single-transferable vote. Combining this with open party list for the top-up seats would be the best of all worlds. Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 1 6 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 3 14 comments
by Oui - Sep 6 3 comments
by gmoke - Aug 25 1 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 21 1 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 22 56 comments
by Oui - Aug 18 8 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 12 25 comments
by Oui - Sep 8
by Oui - Sep 81 comment
by Oui - Sep 7
by Oui - Sep 63 comments
by Oui - Sep 54 comments
by gmoke - Sep 5
by Oui - Sep 41 comment
by Oui - Sep 47 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 314 comments
by Oui - Sep 211 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 16 comments
by Oui - Sep 114 comments
by Oui - Sep 182 comments
by Oui - Sep 11 comment
by gmoke - Aug 29
by Oui - Aug 2818 comments
by Oui - Aug 271 comment
by Oui - Aug 262 comments
by Oui - Aug 2626 comments