D'Hondt explainer

Jeremy Vine, explains just how the D'Hondt system of proportional representation works. This is the system used in European elections not the UKs general election which is first past the post. The D'Hondt system tends to favour smaller parties. Victor d'Hondt was born in Belgium in 1841, he attended Ghent University and first described the d'Hondt method in 1878. This system is used for elections in Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Chile, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Israel, Japan, Netherlands, N. Ireland, Paraguay, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Ireland, Scotland, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland Turkey, Iceland, Walesetc. The alternate spellings of D'Hondt stem from Victors Belgium birth where names can be spelt in either French or Flemish. It is alleged that Victor became so obsessed with perfecting his voting method that his wife took her own life rather than have it explained to her again. After watching this explainer you may have some sympathy with her. Produced by the BBCs Election Team and Brainstorm

[@timdemanwoman]

Wow, this guy makes it sound like an intense horse race.+1

[@vaknyuszi]

thank you, i finally get it, i dont know why my prof couldnt explain it like this!

[@sqgl]

Those computer graphics weren't easy to produce

[@jannoottenburghs5121]

@@sqgl yeah but there easier examples and you can recreate them in excel

[@nonamemike7149]

@@jannoottenburghs5121 Do you know if they vote using buttons? ? Let me know how this happened. This is some article online. I don't know if it's reputable . theverge . "But a last-minute amendment that would have let MEPs take a further vote on the inclusion of Articles 11 and 13 - the most criticized parts of the law, known as the “link tax” and “upload filter,” respectively - was rejected by just five votes.

[@jannoottenburghs5121]

@@nonamemike7149 If I get this right you want to know how MEP's vote in parliament? The method in the European parliament is to raise your hand (thumbs up to be precise) and when it is close thet switch to an electronic vote. The House of Commons in the UK is the only parliament that I know of that uses lobbies rather than electronic votes. Also the EU parliament is very transparant in showing how your MEP has voted.

[@jaym7494]

Proportional representation is essential. Duverger's law is an idea in political science which says that constituencies that use first-past-the-post methods will lead to two-party systems, given enough time.

[@duthchas]

This actually helped me to understand D'Hondt method for my tomorrow's economics exam. :------)

[@axl2059]

Way better than how I got it explained in the lessons, where you get laughed at because it's "so easy"

[@SunflowerSocialist]

And people think STV is confusing.

[@lolgd2466]

Brendan Davison 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@nagdeolife]

Yeah, but voters don't have to understand the nitty-gritty of how the ballots are counted. They just need to know how to mark the ballots. We should have a system that's easy for the voters and complicated for the counters, not complicated for the voters and easy for the counters, which is what we have now with FPTP.

[@susanb1997]

@nagdeolife: I disagree with you. Voters should understand how their vote will be counted and how much it will impact the overall distribution. Additionally, educating themselves on how it works gives them a power to question the authorities. Knowing how to mark the ballot does not make the nation smart.

[@Henrix1998]

@@susanb1997 the only thing they need to know is that they don't have to vote against anyone and can safely vote what they like instead of voting against someone they dislike. So exactly opposite of US

[@Winner8501]

STV is not confusing, but far, far, FAR more difficult to calculate in real life. D'Hondt-style PR is dead easy, I can do it in an Excel spreadsheet in a few minutes. You just count the votes for the parties, plug it in and you've got results. In its pure form, it is about as fast as FPTP. Now if you can do the same with STV, please tell me how because I'd love to understand it. I still have no idea how the surplus votes are re-apportioned by their second preferences and gods know I've tried to understand.

[@Henrix1998]

This isn't the best explanation. How it is explained here is the following: 1/ the most popular candidate of each party gets the number of the total votes for their party as their "comparison number" 2/ the comparison number of each parties' second most popular candidate is half of the total, then third most popular gets third and so on 3/ finally list all candidates based on their comparison number and bam, just start taking candidates from the top before there is enough MEPs Here's an example. The candidates are in personal vote order already and 6 seats are open. Blue's candidates a,b,c,d. Total votes 120 Red's candidates: e,f,g,h. Total votes 100 Green's candidates: I,j,k. Total votes 70 Blue: a=120, b=60, c=40, d=30. Red: e=100, f=50, g=33, h=15 Green: i=70, j=35, k=23 The result: blue 3, red 2, green 1. 7th would be green, 8th red, 9th blue, 10th green and 11th red. With more votes, candidates and seats it gets more and more balanced. With this system it doesn't matter how many candidates the party runs and more is even better yet voters never waste their vote for a favour of another party they don't like

[@alvarobegue2052]

D'Hondt method: Give the next seat to the party with the maximum value of (number of votes) / (number of seats already obtained + 1). Saint-Laguë method: Same as D'Hondt, but use "+ 1/2" instead of "+ 1".

[@Soliy87]

This is acutally quite a fair system compared to FPTP

[@beibei0309]

Hope this could help my political science exam tomorrow.

[@joonastalvinen]

beibei0309 How did it go

[@sqgl]

And the graphics crashed right at the end. You could at least have posted a screen shot of the final result.

[@jaymayhoi]

this is very clear thanks

[@jaym7494]

More relevant than ever six years later here in Canada

[@Matthew97910]

How can we be locally represented in parliament if this system is used since I presume if UKIP had like 80 seats yet with FPTP they had 1 since most people in constituencies voted for other parties. So how would it be decided which MP represented which area. Btw I support PR i'm just confused on how it would work in this way...

[@gladiator3543]

GTAFan97 Each voting system has pros and cons. The good thing, in my opinion, with FPTP is that it preserves the local link; one member per constituency. A pure PR system removes this. Interestingly the D'Hondt system is used for elections to the Scottish Parliament together with the FTPT system (73 seats FTPT, 56 D'Hondt on regional lists). We could say this gives the best of both worlds allowing for single member constituencies plus a proportional top up representing the regions. This does mean though that 2 classes of MPs are created; those with constituencies and those without.

[@DimetriKhan]

gladiator3543 Except with STV you can have proportional multi-member constituencies. Though tbh I'd rather have AMS for Westminster and STV for local elections.

[@Rob749s]

GTAFan97 In high density areas, local representation can mean as little as a few blocks of London (7.35km2 is the smallest). Is local representation so important when the next electorate is a brisk walk away? Essentially all PR is doing is merging adjacent districts so their votes can be more reflective of the electorate. How many districts to "merge" depends on what you want to achieve, some countries simply say merge electorates into groups of 3, some try to keep electorates the same size and vary the number of seats based on population, or anywhere in between. Very few states have only a single electorate, Netherlands and Israel are the only 2 i can think of, and they are both small enough for it to not matter.

[@GreggTO]

Nicely done but it's pronounced "dawnt", not "duh hawnt". it's a Flemish not a French name.

[@Keneo1]

Don’t

[@gregghill2059]

Just confirmed it with ChatGPT😄

[@JMac7991]

Why are the fairer more equatable election methods alway the most complicated to explain?

[@sqgl]

The alternative would be to have multiple election rounds which would be simpler to understand but much more complicated and expensive to run.

[@numbat0072]

use preferential voting instead... the end result is the same as the old fashioned laborious multiple election rounds but the result is achieved instantly ( rather than stretched out over several weeks like multiple election rounds )

[@WorldlyBong]

+ numbat 007 When you say preferential voting, do you mean ranked choice voting/instant runoff voting? Preferential voting don't represent proportionality. In fact, it tends to favour larger parties even more than first past the post in many cases as larger parties are always the 2nd choice for small party voters.

[@numbat0072]

1-yes , that is what i mean 2- " ALWAYS the 2nd choice... " etc really ? what evidence / citations do you have to support this dubious claim ? 3-" doesn't represent proportionality...!@#$ " what exactly do you mean ?

[@WorldlyBong]

@@numbat0072 Funny you call my claim dubious yet you do no research on proportionality based on the IRV elections in Australia's lower house. Electoral system experts have shown seen disproportionality by using the Gallagher Index. Don't get mad at me. Do research.

[@prauxlaps]

Thank you Jeremy

[@gauravpoudel7288]

super clear and interesting to watch too :) Thank you

[@TheBalljumbie5]

Thanks for this explanation.

[@IvanKinsmanSDP]

The Social Democratic Party's Policy Pledge: Westminster parliamentary elections will be conducted under system of proportional representation comprising multi-member geographically based constituencies using the D’Hondt voting method.

[@thepvporg]

That is more complicated than it really needs to be. Keep that total divided by 2, issue a seat, find next highest, do same, divide by 2, issue a seat, then keep dividing by 2 until all the available seats are allocated. It vastly simplifies the method. You can easily do on paper, you'd take each total in turn and divide the totals until you can't return a whole integer of 1 or 1 itself. You have to tabulate your numbers so you do not lose count of divisions or new values. Then rank the parties / candidates in order of highest number of divisions to lowest, you then have your primary list. You then take each seat in turn if they are limited and issue a seat, scrub 1 from that primary count total of divisions and then move to the next candidate / party, keep going until each candidate has been allocated their seats. Your candidates / parties can now be listed highest seats awarded to lowest to show who has overall control

[@okmanek69]

"That is more complicated than it really needs to be. ", "You can easily do on paper". Those are not the best criteria of allocating seats.

[@thepvporg]

@@okmanek69 What are you talking about? Its the dHondt PR method... It does exactly the same as the dHondt PR system and if you do not understand how PR works, you must be a fan of First past the post which lets in many governments that should never of happened.

[@ucah8er]

I get it now. Thanks Jeremy.

[@edinbiker]

How is explaining the D''Hondt formula thankless? In Scotland, I'm blessed to be able to vote in a proportional election so my vote means something.

[@MrDannyDetail]

So each party starts with their original total of votes, lets call that n. You decide who has the most votes, give them an MEP, then divide their total by 2 (1+the number of MEPs already elected at this stage for that party), so if n is their original vote total, then their new total is n/2. Look again to see who has the most votes and repeat the process, remembering that if the same party get another MEP elected then their figure will now be reduced from n/2 to n/3, then if they later get another one n/4 and so on. Keep finding the highest total, declaring an MEP elected, and reducing that party's figure to now be n/(1+e), where is number of MEPs elected so far for that party, until the number of seats has been reached. The parties will have already decided the order of priority for which of it's members take won seats (eg their best candidate will take the first seat, in case it's their only win), second best candidate the next one and so on, but the only drawback I can think of is if a minor party is so over-successful that they win more seats than they have available candidates to fill.

[@Rob749s]

MrDannydoodah There is a variation in which individual candidates are listed on the ballot and they are allocated the party seats according to votes (essentially an election within the election), called an "open list". Then there is a variation where the party has absolute discretion as to which candidates fill the seats, these are called "closed list". Then there is a hybrid where there is a quota for individual candidates to "own" the seat, and all "spare" seats are assigned by the party. There are also different formulas for calculation. D'Hondt tends to favour larger parties, while the Saine-Lague formula tends to favour smaller parties. My guess is this is why UK uses D'Hondt.

[@chrisc884]

thank you, this was very helpful

[@alexandre4970]

Okay, now that was an awesome explanation.

[@beebNEWSgfx]

@GreggTO Interesting! We'll pass it up the chain....

[@corgitastic_2180]

Watching this in lockdown?

[@pingolingo1995]

this was really helpful, thank you so much! ^^

[@ajuk1]

@hazzer777 Yeah we should use STV.

[@nidgemorphie4316]

Who votes who those MEP's are?

[@jannoottenburghs5121]

Based on the ballet. You can vote directly for a candidate or the party itself. So in other words those that got the most votes with the party votes going with the order the party had made. With this method of proportional voting you even have a bigger choice of candidates you can vote one within the same party.

[@nidgemorphie4316]

@@jannoottenburghs5121 do we get direct vote regarding who leads the EU Comission or is that decided behind closed doors?

[@jannoottenburghs5121]

@@nidgemorphie4316 can't speek for the UK itself during EU elections, but in most European countries you get a list candidates in your region. In that list you have the option to vote for canditate(s) you like or you can agree on the order. With party votes. The votes get distributed on the order. But if a large amount of the voters choose a candidate that is lower down, that person has the chance to gain a seat.

[@jannoottenburghs5121]

And with the commission it is probably diceded by the EU parliament I guess. Just with normal elections you actually vote for a representative in the parliament.

[@nidgemorphie4316]

@@jannoottenburghs5121 so someone other than voting citizens decide who the EU Commissioners are?

[@shanksy67]

Thanks but how do i explain this in an essay? lol

[@personwithname6563]

What happens to the leftover votes?

[@Ynysmydwr]

They are disregarded.

[@drivingschool11]

I will never understand. I am too old. But!! The most difficult question global wide is: What's the difference of invalid votes and white votes? Also, what can happen if the total voters are 50 million and the total results are show 45 million white votes? I got opposite answers, silly, conclusions, one answer was: white votes are transferred to the party that got less valid votes. Can someone help my ignorance? Thanks Oh by the way, my daughter's teacher said that white votes are considered as absentism. My mate told that the white vote changes the calculations.

[@Ynysmydwr]

Your daughter's teacher was correct. In the UK, at least, blank and spoiled votes are simply regarded as abstentions. Their number is noted for the official record (so that the total number of ballot papers issued tallies with the total number of papers deposited in the ballot boxes) but they have absolutely no effect on the allocation of seats to the parties that received valid votes. The only country I know of where this situation has been seen by some as problematic is Spain (with their Ciudadanos en Blanco movement -- is it still going? haven't heard much about it lately), but even there blank votes rarely excede 2% of the turnout so I can't see that it is really much of a real issue.

[@drivingschool11]

@@Ynysmydwr so... another silly question: No minimum valid votes are set? In case of 65% of ballot papers deposited are white votes, I reckon there's a difference of 65% instead of 65% abstentionism. White vote it means a person has voted his opinion. Abstentionism is different. White vote it men's also the political option aren't very good and politicians are afraid to tell the minimums of valid ballots. In Brazil and Columbia white votes have been increasing .

[@Ynysmydwr]

@@drivingschool11 -- Not a silly question if you are used to a system which includes a minimum threshold of voter participation. However, that is NOT the case for first-past-the-post elections held in Great Britain [*], where no minimum level of voter participation is required, nor does a candidate have to receive a minimum number of votes to be elected -- but simply half the number of votes cast + one. Here, If there is an electorate of 1000 and candidate A gets 2 votes while candidate B gets 1 vote (i.e. 997 voters abstain = don't turn out for the election or cast blank/spoiled ballot papers) then candidate A is elected. (By the way, if the candidates tie -- say candidate A gets 1 vote and candidate B also gets 1 vote -- then the result is decided by tossing a coin or drawing straws.) You abstain, as I said above, by a) not depositing a ballot paper at all, or b) depositing an incorrectly completed ballot paper (which includes one left blank). All non-votes, whatever their motivation (apathy, protest, or just empty-headedness) are abstentions, and they are not taken into account in calculating who has won a contested election. [*] That is to say, all national and local single-member elections.

[@drivingschool11]

@@Ynysmydwr Finally I'v found the the right person, you! It's gonna take some time to digest your reply. I always vote White because I don't trust politicians. In Australia, 24 options, parties!! very confusing and every six months, bang! Or corruption or love affairs, or travel expenses to Philippines, a Minister decided a new secretary because she is pregnant . another minister is the owner of Helloworld, one requested a private helicopter to travel for 80 km witch is just straightforward freeway. So ,White vote! I don't trust them www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-04/afp-investigated-george-christensen-over-philippines-travel/10972562 Thank you!!

[@red_amoguss]

This system is downright awful, because it hides one fatal flaw within the mathematical workings during allocation of its seats. There’s a reason why we don’t put mathematicians in charge of our electoral process.

[@adamsilverman2]

What flaw would that be?

[@drivingschool11]

The Conservatives lost a lot of votes. wow!

[@MS-19]

Still, they got the most seats, reflecting the percentage of overall votes that was theirs.

[@Mileshire]

Lol it's my last name u pronouce it as DONT

[@ed9709]

Totally unclear.

[@MS-19]

Nevertheless, what is clear is that a party with 40% of the overall votes was awarded 40% of the seats. A party with 20% was awarded 20%, and so on. The result reflected, in the manner of a cross section, what the entire community had voted for.

[@rosmarinusofficialis]

What an utterly stupid system.

[@Libera140Libera]

Brainless!!

[@MS-19]

Not really - as forms of Proportional Representation go, it seems to deliver results that reflect what the electorate instructs - the party with the most votes gets the most seats, the party with the second largest number of votes gets the next largest amount of seats, and so on. If there are 10 seats available in an area, and the votes weigh in at 40% Con 20% Lab 20% LD 10% Green 10% Nationalist, then the seats will be awarded as 4 Con, 2 Lab, 2 LD, 1 Green and 1 Nationalist. It's fair, and even if it doesn't reflect every single vote cast, it reflects - like a cross section - the will of the whole community, not just those who backed the largest party. Where it fails, at least as far as UK elections are concerned, is that we only award 1 seat per area, thus we have a most-votes-wins system, whereby the candidate with the most votes gets the seat and the others get nothing. The unfairness of that is that it doesn't reflect the national will - in 2019 a Conservative majority government was installed though more than half of the electorate voted otherwise. Historically there have also been elections (e.g. February 1974) in which the party with the most votes (in that case the Conservatives) won fewer seats than the party with the next highest number (in that case Labour) so the overall winner didn't win. Ultimately, the only way to deliver what is fair whilst preserving a system of 1 person per area would be to have spare seats, or a second elected chamber with elections held using FPTP for one and PR for the other. That would, however, likely only work if the House of Lords were abolished.

[@Nichtzukennen]

fr

[@hazzer777]

Awful system

[@raebaddings1521]

Why ?

[@Ynysmydwr]

@@jaysongillham4836 In the UK -- where for European and Scottish/Welsh parliamentary elections we have fixed-order party lists -- what you say is true. But that has nothing to do with D'Hondt. There are other countries which do allow voters to rank the candidates appearing on a list according to the voters' (and not the party managers') preference. The trouble is that the popular prejudice here is "ooh, that would make voting MUCH too complicated for BRITISH voters to understand"... The D'Hondt method of distributing seats to parties that is being described here (one that's designed to ensure "fair shares": i.e. if a party gets, say, around a third of the votes it should also get close to a third of the seats) can be used regardless of whether the lists are "closed", as in the UK, or "open".

[@jannoottenburghs5121]

@@jaysongillham4836 You can choose for a candidate (maybe that is different in other countries and hasn't got to do with the method itself) and not just voting for the party (party order). It is still better than first past the post since you only choose for 1 candidate that the party had picked for you.

[@MS-19]

About as awful as a system under which a party with the most votes doesn't win the election because it gets fewer seats. That happened in the February 1974 UK General Election, when the Conservatives got the most votes but Labour got the most seats and formed a government. Which method was that election fought under? (Here's a clue: it wasn't d'Hondt...)

[@Nichtzukennen]

@@raebaddings1521 In my country, 14% of the people that voted had their votes ignored. Some parties with more votes than others ended up with no representative at all.