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). > > > [endquote] > > 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. > [endquote] > > 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? Juho
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
