Talk:Hagenbach-Bischoff quota

Counting STV

Could I propose moving the stuff about use as a quota for STV to the Counting Single Transferable Votes page since it is more relevent there (and is good stuff)?

Thanks for the encouragement. I don't think that would be wise. The STV section is large on its own and I've also added equivalent sections to the articles on Droop quota and Hare quota. If this stuff was merged into Counting Single Transferable Votes that page would be overwhelmed. I think it's better for Counting Single Transferable Votes to have good summaries on each of the three quotas, with the exhaustive detail given on the quota articles themselves. When I get round to it I'll add a summary on the Hagenbach-Bischoff quota to Counting Single Transferable Votes.

Iota 17:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

v. Droop

Unless I'm being exceptionally dim, there is a problem with the scenario being painted in the relative merits of this quoto over Droop, although it eliminates a fairly uncommon potential problem of party voting, doesn't it lead the way to frequent ties.

After all, the order at which candidates in STV arrive at the quota isn't supposed to be expressive; thus althouhg all seats may be filled it would still be possible for the remaining candidate(s) to reach the quota, given sufficient transfers? Unless you had virtually no cross party voting, this would be happening all the time, Shirley.--Red Deathy 12:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quotas

Would this formula: (Votes+1)/(Seats+1)=Quota solve the problems with the H-B quota? Halfelven 15:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how you handle fractions. Take three cases, where the number of seats is 4 and there are 199, 200 or 201 votes.

So the Hagenbach-Bischoff quotas unrounded would be 39.8, 40 and 40.2 and rounded up to the nearest integer would be 40, 40 and 41. Unrounded, they could all cause more ties, but when rounding only 40/200 causes a problem.
The Droop quota unrounded would be 40.8, 41 and 41.2 and rounded down would be 40, 41 and 41, none of which cause problems rounded and counting whole votes but could be seen as being too high when unrounded or counting fractional votes.
Your suggestion would give unrounded quotas of 40, 40.2 and 40.4. These are probably OK (though a little high) unrounded. How would they be rounded? Rounded down to 40,40,40 would cause a major issue for 40/201 and a possible tie, while rounded up to 40,41,41 will never be an improvement on Droop rounded down.

The answer is if you need whole number quotas then use rounded-up H-B or rounded-down Droop depending on how acceptable ties are, but if you can use fractions to add a minimal fraction to unrounded HB (rather than Droop's adding 1). So in these examples use 39.8001, 40.0001 and 40.2001.--Rumping (talk) 09:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tie breaking

Would this be a solution to resolve the tie as described in the 'Disadvantage of Hagenbach-Bischoff quota' section?;

After Andrea's surplus is transferred to Brad and Carter, both have 100 and are tied.

Now looking back at ALL the votes we see that:

75 votes prefer Brad over Carter

50 votes prefer Brad (after Andrea) over anybody else (including Carter)

25 votes prefer Carter over Brad

150 votes prefer Carter (after Andrea) over anybody else (including Brad)

So (75+50=) 125 votes prefer Brad over Carter/anybody else, and (25+150=) 175 votes prefer Carter over Brad/anybody else.

Following this logic Carter should win this tie. --92.67.128.131 (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

See here: Talk:Droop quota#Merge with Hagenbach-Bischoff quota Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]