Skip to main content
Home
plus.maths.org

Secondary menu

  • My list
  • About Plus
  • Sponsors
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • Log in
  • Main navigation

  • Home
  • Articles
  • Collections
  • Podcasts
  • Maths in a minute
  • Puzzles
  • Videos
  • Topics and tags
  • For

    • cat icon
      Curiosity
    • newspaper icon
      Media
    • graduation icon
      Education
    • briefcase icon
      Policy

    Popular topics and tags

    Shapes

    • Geometry
    • Vectors and matrices
    • Topology
    • Networks and graph theory
    • Fractals

    Numbers

    • Number theory
    • Arithmetic
    • Prime numbers
    • Fermat's last theorem
    • Cryptography

    Computing and information

    • Quantum computing
    • Complexity
    • Information theory
    • Artificial intelligence and machine learning
    • Algorithm

    Data and probability

    • Statistics
    • Probability and uncertainty
    • Randomness

    Abstract structures

    • Symmetry
    • Algebra and group theory
    • Vectors and matrices

    Physics

    • Fluid dynamics
    • Quantum physics
    • General relativity, gravity and black holes
    • Entropy and thermodynamics
    • String theory and quantum gravity

    Arts, humanities and sport

    • History and philosophy of mathematics
    • Art and Music
    • Language
    • Sport

    Logic, proof and strategy

    • Logic
    • Proof
    • Game theory

    Calculus and analysis

    • Differential equations
    • Calculus

    Towards applications

    • Mathematical modelling
    • Dynamical systems and Chaos

    Applications

    • Medicine and health
    • Epidemiology
    • Biology
    • Economics and finance
    • Engineering and architecture
    • Weather forecasting
    • Climate change

    Understanding of mathematics

    • Public understanding of mathematics
    • Education

    Get your maths quickly

    • Maths in a minute

    Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
  • Collections
  • Podcasts
  • Maths in a minute
  • Puzzles
  • Videos
  • Topics and tags
  • Audiences

    • cat icon
      Curiosity
    • newspaper icon
      Media
    • graduation icon
      Education
    • briefcase icon
      Policy

    Secondary menu

  • My list
  • About Plus
  • Sponsors
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • Log in
  • Maths in a minute: The d'Hondt method

    21 May, 2019
    2 comments

    The European Parliament elections this week once again turn the spotlight on the maths of democracy. The elections use proportional representation: the idea here is that a party that got x% of the vote should get x% of the seats that are up for grabs.

    Flags

    The UK votes in the European Parliament elections on May 23, 2019. Photo: Daina Le Lardic, © European Union 2018 - Source : EP.

    An obvious advantage of proportional representation is that people are better represented than in a winner-takes-all system. But unfortunately, it's not as straightforward as it may seem at first because percentages don't always translate into whole numbers. For example, if there are 600,000 voters in an election for 100 seats and three parties who each got 200,000 votes, then each party should get exactly one third of the seats. Since a third of 100 is 33.33 and politicians can't be carved up that's impossible.

    To deal with this problem, we need an extra layer of complexity; a method to translate percentages into seats. One common way, used in the European Parliament elections, is the d'Hondt method. The idea is that one seat should "cost" a certain number of votes. Each party should be able to buy as many seats (from the total number of seats) as its vote money allows, because if a party can't get all it can pay for or gets more than it can pay for, it's not fairly represented. Once each party has bought all the seats it can, no seats should be left over.

    Setting the correct price per seat to achieve this seems tricky, but there's an iterative process that delivers the desired result. You start off with giving the party with the largest number of votes one seat. Then, for each party, you work out the number

    $$N = \frac{V}{(s+1)},$$ where $V$ is the number of votes the party got in total and $s$ the number of seats it already has (at the beginning of the process $s$ is $0$ for all but the largest party for which it is $1$). The second seat is given to the party with the highest $N.$ You then again work out each party's $N$ with $s$ increased as appropriate. The party with the highest $N$ gets the third seat. You then continue in this vein until all seats are gone. See below for an example.

    Since proportional representation always involves rounding up or down the number of seats a party should get, no system designed to deliver it is perfect. The d'Hondt system, for example, tends to over-represent the larger parties compared to smaller ones. Which system you choose depends on which of several possible problems you're happiest to live with.

    An example

    Suppose there are 3 parties (A, B and C) competing for 5 seats, and a total of 60 voters. Suppose the result of the election is as follows:

    Votes% of votes
    Party A2033.33%
    Party B1525%
    Party C2541.66%

    If we went for exact proportionality then party A would have to get 1.66 seats, party B would have to get 1.25 seats, and party C would have to get 2.083 seats. These aren't whole numbers, so exact proportionality is impossible. Let's use the d'Hondt method instead.

    Party C has the largest number of votes, so it gets one seat to start with. We now have:

    SeatssN
    Party A0020/1=20
    Party B0015/1=15
    Party C1125/2=12.5
    The largest value of N is that of party A, so it gets one seat. We now have:
    SeatssN
    Party A1120/2=10
    Party B0015/1=15
    Party C1125/2=12.5
    The largest value of N is that of party B, so it gets one seat. We now have:
    SeatssN
    Party A1120/2=10
    Party B1115/2=7.5
    Party C1125/2=12.5
    The largest value of N is that of party C, so it gets another seat. We now have:
    SeatssN
    Party A1120/2=10
    Party B1115/2=7.5
    Party C2225/3=8.33
    The largest value of N is that of party A, so it also gets another seat. All five seats are now gone and the final seat allocation is:
    Seats% of seats% of seats under exact proportionality
    Party A240%33.33%
    Party B120%25%
    Party C240%41.66

    This shows that the party with the smallest share of the vote, party B, is under-represented, while party A is over-represented and the representation of party C is just about right.

    This is equivalent to "selling" each seat for either 9 or 10 votes. You can check for yourself that selling a seat for any other number of votes would lead to not all five seats being filled, or more than 5 being filled.


    About this article

    Book cover

    This article is based on a chapter from the new book Understanding numbers by the Plus Editors Rachel Thomas and Marianne Freiberger. The book will be published on April 11, 2019!

    • Log in or register to post comments

    Comments

    Yoo kim

    7 November 2019

    Permalink

    "Since a third of 100 is 33.33 and politicians can't be carved up that's impossible."
    First part true, second part false.

    • Log in or register to post comments

    naheedn

    26 April 2020

    Permalink

    I liked the article so much that I just ordered one book.

    • Log in or register to post comments

    Read more about...

    election
    voting
    voting systems
    Maths in a minute

    Our Podcast: Maths on the Move

    Our Maths on the Move podcast brings you the latest news from the world of maths, plus interviews and discussions with leading mathematicians and scientists about the maths that is changing our lives.

    Apple Podcasts
    Spotify
    Podbean

    Plus delivered to you

    Keep up to date with Plus by subscribing to our newsletter or following Plus on X or Bluesky.

    University of Cambridge logo

    Plus is part of the family of activities in the Millennium Mathematics Project.
    Copyright © 1997 - 2025. University of Cambridge. All rights reserved.

    Terms