World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Largest remainder method

Article Id: WHEBN0000374481
Reproduction Date:

Title: Largest remainder method  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Table of voting systems by country, Hong Kong legislative election, 2012, Party-list proportional representation, Elections to the European Parliament, Levko Lukyanenko
Collection: Party-List Pr
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia

Largest remainder method

The largest remainder method (also known as Hare-Niemeyer method or as Vinton's method[1]) is one way of allocating seats proportionally for representative assemblies with party list voting systems. It contrasts with the highest averages method.


  • Method 1
  • Quotas 2
  • Examples 3
    • Hare quota 3.1
    • Droop quota 3.2
    • Pros and cons 3.3
  • Technical evaluation and paradoxes 4
  • See also 5
  • References 6
  • External links 7


The largest remainder method requires the numbers of votes for each party to be divided by a quota representing the number of votes required for a seat (i.e. usually the total number of votes cast divided by the number of seats, or some similar formula). The result for each party will usually consist of an integer part plus a fractional remainder. Each party is first allocated a number of seats equal to their integer. This will generally leave some seats unallocated: the parties are then ranked on the basis of the fractional remainders, and the parties with the largest remainders are each allocated one additional seat until all the seats have been allocated. This gives the method its name.


There are several possibilities for the quota. The most common are: the Hare quota and the Droop quota.

The Hare (or simple) Quota is defined as follows

\frac{\mbox{total} \; \mbox{votes}}{\mbox{total} \; \mbox{seats}}

The Hamilton method of apportionment is actually a largest-remainder method which uses the Hare Quota. It is named after Alexander Hamilton, who invented the largest-remainder method in 1792. It was first adopted to apportion the U.S. House of Representatives every two years between 1852 and 1900. It is used for legislative elections in Russia (with a 7% exclusion threshold since 2007), Ukraine (5% threshold), Tunisia,[2] Namibia and Hong Kong.

The Droop quota is the integer part of

1+\frac{\mbox{total} \; \mbox{votes}}{1+\mbox{total} \; \mbox{seats}}

and is applied in elections in South Africa. The Hagenbach-Bischoff quota is virtually identical, being

\frac{\mbox{total} \; \mbox{votes}}{1+\mbox{total} \; \mbox{seats}}

either used as a fraction or rounded up.

The Hare quota tends to be slightly more generous to less popular parties and the Droop quota to more popular parties, and can arguably be considered more proportional than Droop quota[3][4][5][6][7] although it is more likely to give fewer than half the seats to a list with more than half the vote.

The Imperiali quota

\frac{\mbox{total} \; \mbox{votes}}{2+\mbox{total} \; \mbox{seats}}

is rarely used since it suffers from the defect that it might result in more seats being allocated than there are available (this can also occur with the Hagenbach-Bischoff quota but it is very unlikely, and it is impossible with the Hare and Droop quotas). This will certainly happen if there are only two parties. In such a case, it is usual to increase the quota until the number of candidates elected is equal to the number of seats available, in effect changing the voting system to the Jefferson apportionment formula (see D'Hondt method).


These examples take an election to allocate 10 seats where there are 100,000 votes.

Hare quota

Party Yellows Whites Reds Greens Blues Pinks Total
Votes 47,000 16,000 15,800 12,000 6,100 3,100 100,000
Seats 10
Hare Quota 10,000
Votes/Quota 4.70 1.60 1.58 1.20 0.61 0.31
Automatic seats 4 1 1 1 0 0 7
Remainder 0.70 0.60 0.58 0.20 0.61 0.31
Highest Remainder Seats 1 1 0 0 1 0 3
Total Seats 5 2 1 1 1 0 10

Droop quota

Party Yellows Whites Reds Greens Blues Pinks Total
Votes 47,000 16,000 15,800 12,000 6,100 3,100 100,000
Seats 10+1=11
Droop Quota 9,091
Votes/Quota 5.170 1.760 1.738 1.320 0.671 0.341
Automatic seats 5 1 1 1 0 0 8
Remainder 0.170 0.760 0.738 0.320 0.671 0.341
Highest Remainder Seats 0 1 1 0 0 0 2
Total Seats 5 2 2 1 0 0 10

Pros and cons

It is relatively easy for a voter to understand how the largest remainder method allocates seats. The Hare quota gives an advantage to smaller parties while the Droop quota favours larger parties.[8] However, whether a list gets an extra seat or not may well depend on how the remaining votes are distributed among other parties: it is quite possible for a party to make a slight percentage gain yet lose a seat if the votes for other parties also change. A related feature is that increasing the number of seats may cause a party to lose a seat (the so-called Alabama paradox). The highest averages methods avoid this latter paradox but since no apportionment method is entirely free from paradox,[9] they introduce others like quota violation.[10]

Technical evaluation and paradoxes

The largest remainder method is the only apportionment that satisfies the quota rule; in fact, it is designed to satisfy this criterion. However, it comes at the cost of paradoxical behaviour. The Alabama paradox is exhibited when an increase in seats apportioned leads to a decrease in the number of seats allocated to a certain party. Suppose 25 seats are to be apportioned between six parties with votes cast in the proportions 1500:1500:900:500:500:200. The two parties with 500 votes get three seats each. Now allocate 26 seats, and it will be found that the these parties get only two seats apiece.

With 25 seats, we get:

Party A B C D E F Total
Votes 1500 1500 900 500 500 200 5100
Seats 25
Hare Quota 204
Quotas Received 7.35 7.35 4.41 2.45 2.45 0.98
Automatic seats 7 7 4 2 2 0 22
Remainder 0.35 0.35 0.41 0.45 0.45 0.98
Surplus seats 0 0 0 1 1 1 3
Total Seats 7 7 4 3 3 1 25

With 26 seats, we have:

Party A B C D E F Total
Votes 1500 1500 900 500 500 200 5100
Seats 26
Hare Quota 196
Quotas Received 7.65 7.65 4.59 2.55 2.55 1.02
Automatic seats 7 7 4 2 2 1 23
Remainder 0.65 0.65 0.59 0.55 0.55 0.02
Surplus seats 1 1 1 0 0 0 3
Total Seats 8 8 5 2 2 1 26

See also


  1. ^ Tannenbaum, Peter (2010). Excursions in Modern Mathematics. New York: Prentice Hall. p. 128.  
  2. ^ "2". Proposed Basic Law on Elections and Referendums - Tunisia (Non-official translation to English).  
  3. ^
  4. ^
  5. ^
  6. ^
  7. ^
  8. ^ See for example the 2012 election in Hong Kong Island where the DAB ran as two lists and gained twice as many seats as the single-list Civic despite receiving fewer votes in total: New York Times report
  9. ^ Balinski, Michel; H. Peyton Young (1982). Fair Representation: Meeting the Ideal of One Man, One Vote. Yale Univ Pr.  
  10. ^ Messner; et al. "RangeVoting: Apportionment and rounding schemes". Retrieved 2014-02-02. 

External links

This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.