What Is the Previous Balance Method?

The maximum balance method, also known as the amount system, is a method of seat allocation under the proportional representation voting system, as opposed to the highest average method.

Maximum balance method

Right!

The maximum balance method, also known as the amount system, is

Through the maximum balance method, candidates must run on a list, and the number of people on each list can reach the number of seats in the relevant constituency. The candidates are listed on the list in order of priority. Voters vote for a list, not individual candidates. After voting, divide the valid votes by

The most commonly used maximum balance method uses three types of amounts:

1. Assume that 100,000 voters are elected and 10 seats are allocated. Election results:

Allocating seats by the maximum balance method is not complicated, and the average voter should be able to understand how it works. The method of using the maximum balance of the Hale amount does not favor a list with more or less votes. The advantage is that it can give a neutral but widely representative election result. The maximum balance method can accommodate minorities and is conducive to the development of multi-party parliaments. This system also prevents voters from voting for individual candidates. From a positive perspective, this means that voters will change their voting platform based on the platform of each candidate list to strengthen the rational basis for elections. However, each political party may have a corresponding "distribution strategy", such as splitting candidates of the same party into different lists so that candidates can be elected based on the balance.

However, whether a list can get seats depends largely on the proportion of votes received by other lists. The list is likely to have a high voter turnout, but instead loses one seat. Adding seats may also cause some lists to lose seats, which is called the Alabama paradox. The Sainte-Lagu & euml; method avoids this situation, but is more difficult to understand.

Here is an example of the Alabama paradox. 6 candidates, each with a voting ratio of 200: 500: 500: 900: 1500: 1500, with 25 seats allocated:

Through the allocation of the amounts, the first, second, and third seats in the list A, B, and C respectively were obtained; and the remaining balances were compared, and the first, second, and third seats in the list were each obtained.

However, if the number of seats allocated is increased to 26:

Through the distribution of the amounts, the first to the second list respectively received 1, 2, 2, 4, 7, and 7 seats; but compared to the remaining balances, the previous list of Ding, Wu and Ji, who had not been added to the seats, each received one more seat; With the exception of list A, which just won enough seats to win the seats, there was no extra, and both B and C failed to obtain seats through the maximum balance allocation.