In many discussions, I now see people naming a Belgian mathematician as a substitute for the argument. The cry “D’Hondt” alone is enough.
I'd like to know what they mean! erstwhile I ask if they could specify this method, of course they are moved that NO JASNE, but if it is pressed, they will be offended, possibly carelessly paste the password from wikipedia (of course, Polish).
So let's get this straight. The method is named after Victor D’Hondt, who described it (though he did not invent it).
Imagine that the votes in a given territory were 100,000 (then it will be easy for us to convert percentages into thousands) and that 5 letters crossed the electoral threshold, as it was in 2015. Let us skip the 1st mandate of the German number to simplify.
Imagine that the most votes were given to the party... let's call it Zwis (38 thousand), and least – but above the threshold – the party, let's say, Pezel (5 thousand). And we've got all the tickets from this territory to fill 20.
According to the D’Hondt method, we divide these results by consecutive integers (1, 2, 3, etc.) and compose them in the table. We choose the 20 largest quotients and delegate tickets to those parties that had these quotients in the right column.
The Zwis organization followed by: 38,000, 19.000, 12.667, 9.500, 7.600, 6.333 and 5.429. So he has to get 7 tickets before 1 gets Pezel.
The alternate is the Sainte-Lague method utilized respective times in Poland (and popular in the world). There the results are divided by consecutive unusual numbers (1, 3, 5, etc.).
In this method, we have a greater leap between the next number. For the Zwis organization it will now be: 38,000, 12.667, 7.600, 5.429. So all she needs to do is give her 4 tickets, and 1 of them gets our mediocre Pezel.
So much math. any chumanists attribute this method to any unusual property, specified as “appointing the votes of the organization that did not exceed the threshold, the strongest party”, or even “appointing the majority of it from the vending machine.”
That's bullshit. In practice, there is no universal conversion factor. besides much depends on the difference between the consequence of lot #1 and lot #2, and on how many parties crossed the threshold.
Let us add that we are constantly considering this on the example of 1 constituency. There are 41 in the Sejm election. The order will be different, in any cases the Pezel organization will receive a bonus from D’Hondt.
The claim that the PiS won the 2015 election through D’Hondt's ordination is mathematically false. In the above example in the 20-mandate district, the mandates would break down like this: 9-6-2-2-1. So, the hangman doesn't have a majority.
If the election results were geographically homogenous, i.e. in each PiS territory there would have 37,58% of the vote and Platform 24,09% of the vote (etc.), The Law and Justice would have 200 twelve tickets.
They'd gotta form a coalition with Kukiz.
Either they were damn lucky, or they were smart about it from the socio-mathematic side and focused on the districts they should be on. Your guess is as good as mine.
A small little crucial is the failure of the ZLEW-TRUP list. As we remember, she received 7.55%, but due to Miller and Palikot's suicide bravado, she was registered as a coalition, so she was bound by a larger threshold (and take here do not hatred 1 with another).
Many commentators linked the success of the PiS to the demolition of the left. Math doesn't indicate that. The division in a 20-mandate circle, taking into account the ZLEW-TRUP input, is 9-6-2-1-1-1. This extra ticket is taken by Modern Richard Petru.
However, the entry of the SLD into the Sejm does not mean a completely different way of history. In the Kukiz coalition, they'd do the same thing.
With fun in simulating ordination – to which PT readers warmly invitation – there are respective conclusions.
First, geography rules. There are no "swing states" in Poland, but besides in our electoral strategy we should approach on the rule of "Lomaze we may lose, but we must play as much as possible in Legnica". It depends whether the same 35% translates into 220 or 240 tickets.
TWO: D’Hondt’s bonus is not just a batch number 1. In the above case, the first 3 would benefit (i.e. their percent would be rounded up).
Third: The more the letter participates in the split, the little crucial this bonus is. Already on 6 lists, no socio-geographical trick would give PiS 230 tickets.
FOUR: Even if you number it according to Sainte-Lague, PiS would make a government with Kukiz. They won not due to the method of counting, but due to the good distribution of support on the map.
The cities that have another applications should sign in.
