Talk:Hare quota

message: I dont understand why such a fuss is made out of the fact that Hare quota can give a minority of seats to a majority of votes (btw it has a significantly smaller problem with this than Sainte-Lague) - giving more than 1/2 of the seats to a party of more than 1/2 of the votes is not mathematically more important (thus making it not a technical but a political flaw) than giving more than 1/3 of seats to a party of more than 1/3 of votes, or more than 1% of the seats to a party of more than 1% of the votes, and all of this cannot be simultaneously satisfied with the system of allocating the seats. It is not related to proportionality, but is a political demand - so it seems quite appropriate for it to be satisfied at the end of the calculation, by giving some premium seats to the majority party - an ad-hoc sollution to an ad-hoc problem. It certanly doesnt seem to be a sufficient reason to sacrifice superior proportionality throuought the calculation, that Hare ensures. Particulary not on such a way, as with Hagenbach-Bischoff quota needed for this majority rule ensurance, as to open the possibility of aditional bias of giving more seats to some constituancies than to others --Aryah 05:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the issue is not giving less than majority to a party with more than half the votes but the constant related inverse - giving a majority of seats to a party with less than half the votes. Not all mis-representation is viewed the same - a variance of ten percent from a party's due proportion of seats that wrongly give majority control is more important than difference between 30 percent of seats and 40 percent of seats -- it actually gives a party a majority of seats in a chamber and that is where power lies. 2604:3D09:887C:7B70:0:0:0:6A17 (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: majority rule

message: Hello,
in the example there are 100 votes and 2 seats.  The latter divides the first, making the example unrealistically simplistic.  It would be more interesting to see how they deal with non integer fractions (it can be of importance!)
Evilbu 13:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The numbers in the example are too nice 

message: Firstly, the description of the Brazilian electoral system doesn't belong in the introduction.
I suggest that a new section "Examples of Use" be added, and this paragraph moved there. (As it may grow into a long tabulation over time, I suggest making it the last paragraph in the article.)
Secondly, the description of the Hong Kong electoral system largely repeats what's in the Criticisms section. The introduction should include just a one-sentence summary of the comparisons, and the other details should be incorporated into the Criticisms section (or move to the aforementioned "Examples of Use".
Possibly the Comparison with the Droop quota heading should be made subordinate to a new "Comparisons with other Methods" heading, leaving room for the Brazilian example as a "Mixed" system. (It would be helpful to add some explanation of the effect that the mixed system has in Brazil.)
Martin Kealey (talk) 06:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction is too long 

message: This article has ended up as an article about Hong Kong politics for reasons I don't quite understand. (It also doesn't seem to make sense. Splintering isn't a typical result of the Hare quota--Germany has used Hare for most of its history within a stable 4-party system. It definitely doesn't incentivize splitting for parties that can win more than 1 seat, for which it's effectively unbiased.) Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split off section on Hong Kong politics