Maybe they just need some help working it all out. It can be a bit complicated.

The World According to D'Hondt

After all the votes have been tallied, successive quotients are calculated for each list. The formula for the quotient is V/(s+1), where V is the total number of votes that list received, and s is the number of seats that party has been allocated so far (initially 0 for all parties). Whichever list has the highest quotient gets the next seat allocated, and their quotient is recalculated given their new seat total. The process is repeated until all seats have been allocated.


The order in which seats allocated to a list are then allocated to individuals on the list is irrelevant to the allocation procedure. It may be internal to the party (a closed list system) or the voters may have influence over it through various methods (an open list system).


The rationale behind this procedure (and the Sainte-Laguë procedure) is to allocate seats in proportion to the number of votes a list received, by maintaining the ratio of votes received to seats allocated as close as possible. This makes it possible for parties having relatively few votes to be represented.


In some cases, a threshold or barrage is set, and any list which does not receive that threshold will not have any seats allocated to it, even if it received enough votes to otherwise have been rewarded with a seat. Examples of countries using this threshold are Israel (1.5%), Turkey (5%) and Belgium (5%, on regional basis).


Some systems allow parties to associate their lists together into a single cartel in order to overcome the threshold, while some systems set a separate threshold for cartels. Smaller parties often form pre-election coalitions to make sure they get past the election threshold.


I still don't get it!

They should use the matrix vote or similar as has been suggested by Peter Emerson (Green Party) and others for years.

What amazes me is the SDLP's unconditional support for d'Hondt, in places like Castlereagh and Lisburn. Am I not right in thinking that if d'Hondt were introduced in some councils where the SDLP has some representation, they would actually be doing themselves OUT of positions?

Gonzo

If it's the fairest way, then surely it should be supported even if it could temporarily cost a party a position or two. Was it yourself or IJP who delievered a sharp rebuke to somebody who pointed out that the Alliance's proposal to lessen the number of seats in the assembly who cost the party the most of their MLAs? Same sort of principle here.

a) it doesn't really matter who is mayor or chairman of the sub committee on public toilets IMO

b) but if it does matter to anyone, then a system which allows Sinn Fein 2 mayors in 4 years with 6 seats, and Unionists 1 mayoralty with 6 seats clearly isn't working- and if the Nat/Unionists split is 6-9, then awarding the fourth chain to the SDLP means 75% nationalist mayors for 60% of seats is not proportionate, though interestingly the SDLP want d'Hondt here but not in neighbouring Coleraine where they would get nothing.

What this is really about is nationalists working with republicans to have a predominantly nationalist slate of office holders in advance of council redistribution, to encourage incorporating Limavady into Londonderry Council in 2009, at the price of abandoning an 11 year convention of 1 mayor from each of the 4 parties in alternate years which ensured a fairly harmonious council. They were offered a deal which would have preserved the status quo, and benefitted the SDLP at leasst as much as Unionists.

Limavady is also unusual in that the main town is predominantly Unionist, but the outlying rural area has nationalist majority,much of which naturally gravitates to Londonderry rather than Limavady and this skews the election results. It's like moving Twinbrook into Belfast's existing boundaries , with 3/4 mayors from that ward for the whole of Belfast City Council or putting Newtownards into Down District Council and similarly affecting the result. Another reason to look again at crazy boundaries.

That's politics, but SDLP can't complain if they lose out elsewhere for short term gain.

Gonzo

I would swear an SDLP councillor was complaining about D'hondt (in reference to Magherafelt council I think) but can't find the statement.

"Limavady is also unusual in that the main town is predominantly Unionist, but the outlying rural area has nationalist majority,much of which naturally gravitates to Londonderry rather than Limavady and this skews the election results. It's like moving Twinbrook into Belfast's existing boundaries , with 3/4 mayors from that ward for the whole of Belfast City Council"

Well no it wouldn't be remotely comparable. If you added the 5 Lisburn wards covering Dunmurry, Poleglass and Twinbrook to an enlarged Belfast city council then they would only make up 3 wards out of 54 (or 5.5% of the total) so giving them 3/4 mayors or 75% of the total wouldn't be fair. The surrounding areas around Limavady town elect 10 of the councils 15 members (67% of the total) so giving them 75% of the mayors is hardly a massive act of discrimination. Also while Limavady may well be "predominantly" unionist, 2 of the 5 councillors have been Nationalist since 1993.

I would also have my doubts that places like Magilligan or Dungiven look to Derry rather than Limavady but I'd happily bow to local knowledge in the matter.

Do places like Magilligan

67% of the council get 75% of the mayoral positions. What a shocker.

Am i right in thinking that the 4 year mayoral position is split into 4 single year terms. So the nationalists could have had 1 year (25%), 2 years (50%), 3 years (75%) or 4 (100%) years in the position.

One crackerjack pen for the person who can choose the percentage closest to 67%.

Hangs head in shame. Limavady has a 60% nationalist council - not 67%. Goodbye crackerjack pen, we had some good times. I never liked it up 'round there anyway.

In this instance D'hondt seems to be the most fair approach possible. To have unionists walking out is laughable given their behaviour on Lisburn and Castlereagh councils. Seems to be a case of do as we say, not as we do, with these people.

Cllr Wallace Browne elected Lord Mayor of Belfast

Pat Convery Deputy Lord Mayor

sinn fein contested both positions with daniel lavery + margaret Mc Clenaghan but only managed to recieve the support of their own party.

PS

I take your point, but the SDLP argues that d'Hondt is 'inclusive' when it in fact could permanently exclude the SDLP from the leading positions in certain councils.

It seems odd, but I'll hold fire until someone does the sums (Nick Whyte, where are you when we need you!?)

:o)

Turkeys, voting and Christmas are words that spring to mind!

For the third time Ballysilly, CARAL NI CUHLIN , not Margaret McCleneghan. Triple doh!

Paul

"Margaret McCleneghan didn't go for mayor, it was Caral Ni Cuihlin, doh!"

Do i sense a slight hint of sour grapes on your part?

What ever their name is doesn't really matter. There is an inability for women in SF to show real character or courage. They just seem to stand there!

The refusal of four Ulster Unionists (Browne, Adamson, Stoker and McCoubrey) to choose between Pat Convery and Danny Lavery was a disgrace.

They should have voted for Convery, instead they sat on their hands and looked like bigots. What was hard about making a choice between a Shinner and and SDLP mamn from a UUP POV? Maybe the fact that big Fra and even bigger Davy are the best of mates explains it?

SDLP supporters and members should remeber this behaviour, the next time UUP councillors come looking something in places like Fermamanagh or Down.

Interestingly the outgoing Mayor of Antrim Robert Burns (SDLP)handed over the chain of office to the incoming Mayor Drew Ritchie (Ulster Unionist) and promptly resigned from the SDLP group after 30 years in the party thereby reducing the parties seats on bodies such as the DPP.

Interestingly the outgoing Mayor of Antrim Robert Burns (SDLP)handed over the chain of office to the incoming Mayor Drew Ritchie (Ulster Unionist) and promptly resigned from the SDLP group after 30 years in the party thereby reducing the partys seats on bodies such as the DPP.

Apologies
outgoing Mayor Robert Loughran

SDLP Supporter.

Any truth in the rumour that Browne (UUP), is very friendly with a Sinn Fein Cllr, as they socialise together? Although I have no idea as to what possible excuse the others would come up with, for their appalling behaviour.

Browne's friendship with a SF cllr would be a welcome development, particularly if more publicly known. This would send out a positive signal to all sections of the community that political leaders are capable of forging bonds and should be followed by their respective communities. Somehow, however, I don't think Cllr. Browne's party would welcome the public knowing this as I'd imagine his own party and the DUP would rant and rave about it. Oh well, I can live in hope.

SDLP Supporter,

I totally agree that it was disgraceful behaviour the four cllrs in question. I was talking to one of the DUP cllrs on the way in and she said she had no problem voting for an SDLP mayor. The UUP grouping on Belfast City Council can be really arrogant at times. For example proposing Bob Stoker as Lord Mayor the year after Jim Rodgers held the position.
As for Mc Coubrey, his seat won by default of DUP transfers that had nowhere else to go. He won't be back next time.
I hear that the SDLP will take the Mayors position next time, am I correct?

Interestingly when I rang the SF press office on Wednesday to enquire as to there mayoral intentions I heard a similar story.
The man who answered said that they were getting places with some UUP cllrs who were willing to buy into a deal similar to d'Hondt to elect mayors. Howeverhe said they were eager to keep this under wraps or the DUP would pull the UUP back into line.
More interesting he said they were hitting a dead wall as far as the alliance were concerned who would barely talk to them.

I have heard from my friends in City Hall that the DUP, UUP, SDLP, ALL an other unionists have struck a deal on the distribution of mayoral positions over the next 4 years. It goes like this;

05/06-lord mayor-DUP, deputy-SDLP
06/07-lord mayor-SDLP,deputy-UUP
07/08-lord mayor-UUP, deputy-DUP
08/09-lord mayor-DUP, deputy-all

as far as the high sheriff's position goes I have heard
06-DUP; Cllr Crozier
07-UUP; Cllr Adamson
08-All; Cllr Jones
09-DUP; Cllr D Dodds

Has anyone else heard any speculation??

Oi
This thread is about lovely Limavady. So all you McCooeys who care about the grubby metropolis bugger off somewhere where people care.

"No blue flags for your town..."

The sdlp have introduced d'hondt into down district council for the top two positions and in doing so have ensured a sf/ira chairmanship, most likely former IRA prisoner eamon mcconvey, a disgraceful move considering the sdlp's previous proud tradition of rotating the charimanship between the two traditions.

UUP and DUP are left with one chairmanship and vice chairmanship between them, the same applying to the four statutory committees.

It seems to me nationalists have really stuck together to squeeze unionists out of any top posts in many of NI'S council, I empathise completely with Limavady.

Perhaps Unionist dominated Councils should introduce d'hondt to exclude the sdlp to completely exclude the sdlp and hear the crying then!

Ironically, for an example of parties working together and power sharing, people should look at Larne where all parties are sharing the mayoralty.

It appears my stutter makes it into my typing as well looking at paragraph 4 of my post!

Ballysillan

That is incorrect.

As I suspect you know fine well.

Cllr IJP,
Well I can assure you that none of the unionists will be voting for an alliance Lord Mayor this term.

Ballysillan

They didn't last time, either. Although they've voted for members of groupings directly linked to active Loyalist terrorists in the past. What's your point?

Why did you come on here and produce a set of blatant lies?

IJP I beleive the Alliance voted for Republican terrorists in Belfast ensuring that it had its first Sinn Fein ira mayor. I know that many alliance members were disgusted with this but that does not however removie the responsibility from them.

The alliance will do anything to ensure that they get a Lord Mayor's position in the 4 years.

IJP,

Tell Naomi Long that her assembly seat has got DUP written all over it. She's going down...

Ballymacarn

It seems to me nationalists have really stuck together to squeeze unionists out of any top posts in many of NI'S council, I empathise completely with Limavady.

What Nationalists have actually done is ensure that the d'Hondt system takes the petty horse trading and bickering away from council proceedings and ensures that positions of authority are shared out in a fair and proportionate manner based on the support from the electorate each party in the council has received.

Well, it certainly makes Lisburn a picture of good power sharing with Alliance and SDLP members getting positions far beyond their electoral strength.

Roger

Unionists' complaints about SF Lord Mayors would have legitimacy if it wasn't for their own complete and blatant hypocrisy on the matter. They're even forming a bloc with 'Independents' with 'interesting' pasts in this very council term!

Disgusting.

IJP

Isn't that a bit of whataboutery?

I wish to complain about a SF Lord Mayor. But by your logic this must mean that I am a complete and blatant hypocrite.

Contrary to my earlier comments on this thread I would now say that in this case, a 9-6 split in councillors should result in a two-two split in mayoral positions.

One thing that does surprise me is peoples unthinking support for D'Hondt as the best way to represent minorities. In order to be effective D'Hondt needs a fair number of elected councillors and a largish number of positions to be filled. It is a flawed system when you only have a small number of mayoral positions to be filled. This point was actually acknowledged by virtually all the parties after the failed experiment in using D'hondt for the 1996 forum elections.

The main flaw is that often those parties which only obtain a councillor or two have absolutely no input whatsoever into the selection of mayors. Surely a better solution for selecting Mayors would be to use the same system which is used to elect councillors in the first place, namely STV? To be effective this would probably need at least 40 members per council which is a possibility post council reorganisation.

Alternatively and even more democratically, Mayors could be directly elected in one batch at the start of the council term. The election could take place on the same day as the council election itself.

Bertie

Without wishing to go into huge detail off-topic, there was a much much better case for electing Mr Maskey (at a time of apparently decreasing mafia-style gangsterism from the group he is linked to and in the context of SF being the largest party) than there ever was for electing or sharing a single bloc with representatives of small Loyalist groups that at the time were engaged directly in paramilitary activity.

There is a coherent case for saying that none of those people should've been elected. There is a case for singling out Mr Maskey as the only one who should've been. And there is a case for saying all three should've been. But there is no case for saying that it was acceptable to appoint representatives of fully active Loyalist groups (with no conditions), but yet not to appoint a representative of a Republican group which had just decommissioned some weaponry and appeared to be winding down (with conditions).

Had the Alliance group not agreed to Mr Maskey's term, I would argue that SF would have used the grievance to ensure it was still the largest party in Belfast City Council and you'd be looking at a Nationalist majority which would've seen two Lord Mayors in this term. You may be grateful that Alliance has retained the balance of power and will not accept an SF Lord Mayor prior to clear actions showing intent to act solely democratically.

I hope that answers the query - it's off-topic but I accept it's quite important, so if you're a Belfast resident (or even if you're not) please do not hesitate to write to the party with any concerns you have. Please note that the Cllrs themselves make such decisions, I'm sure they'll be glad to respond.

Valenciano

Spot on.

D'Hondt really isn't a very clever formula because it actually plays into the hands of larger groups.

Independents should not be permanently deprived of a chance to affect the outcome of decisions such as who should be Mayor.

IJP

Thanks for the background info. However it doesn't really answer my point as it was a response to your point to Roger'

"Unionists' complaints about SF Lord Mayors would have legitimacy if it wasn't for their own complete and blatant hypocrisy on the matter."

This unionist (i.e. me [and I suspect Roger, but he is more than caplable for speaking for himself]), is of the type that would have no truck with any of them.

I would agree with you that it is hypocracy to take a stand against on republican terrorism but to cosy up with their "loyalist" equivalent. I find it hard to understand how anyone with any inderstanding of the suffering terrorism has caused would want to give succour to any of them.

I was just challanging the way you expressed yourself, as if any unionist complaint in this area was hypocracy.

Re being off topic, I am relatively new to slugger but I have noted that it takes ver few post for the conversation to go way way off topic. In fact when I have taken a particular interest in a discussion, or am waiting a particular response to something I have posted, 'i find that the title of the thread is not a good clue for guessing which thread I need to bring up :o)

"I hope that answers the query - it's off-topic but I accept it's quite important, so if you're a Belfast resident (or even if you're not) please do not hesitate to write to the party with any concerns you have."

Why did the Alliance Party vote to close Maysfield Leisure Centre,thus denying local rate payers the right to avail of the only safe leisure amenity within the locality.

Bertie

I fully accept that many unionists (small-u) do not personally want anything to do with grubby deals with those representing Loyalist terrorists and gangsters. However, note that a Unionist vote in a Belfast City Council election is a vote for 'cosying up'. Even now, the Ulster Unionists have found common cause with some 'Independents' with 'interesting' pasts. Genuine anti-gangster 'unionists' should think about that when casting their vote.

brade

Again, why not address your query to one of our Belfast City Cllrs? Email addresses are available via the party website.

The principle behind it is that we have a society carved up between 'communities', and the Alliance vision is of a much more integrated society. In Belfast we have twice as many facilities - anything from leisure centres to bus stops - as you would have in most comparatively sized cities across Europe. These all cost you, the rate payer, money.

The Alliance vision is one of an integrated society without extra, artificial facilities, and the relevant money re-invested in reducing rates and spending on front-line services where it really counts.

Segregation or front-line services? - YOU decide!

IJP

If it true that as you say, that a Unionist vote in Belfast council is a vote for cosying up (and I don't know enough to know one way or the other but would be very suprised if every single unionist councilor was so tainted), who do you vote for if you are so opposed to terroriss and its appeasement, you oppose the Belfast Agreement, that excludes, Alliance and SDLP. (If I fully beleived that the only unionists on offer to me would cosy up to loyalist terrorists, I would vote for a nationalist, as long as they were opposed to terrorism and appeasement, but there don't seem to be any of those. Left with this choice, I suppose you could say that atleast the tainted unioists have complete antipathy to some terrorists. This moral bankrupcy IMO has been increased by the Belfast Agreement.

Well it was the d'hondt system that produced an Executive of six Unionists and six Nationalists and excluded the Alliance party. This was a ridiculous scenario given the Unionist majority in the Assembly.

The 2009 councils will be very interesting. Areas that have been Nationalist will find themselves in some cases with Unionist councils.Wait to you see the infighting that goes on as councillors try to save their seats.

Bertie

On that basis, you'll be surprised to hear my advice is to vote Alliance!

Alliance put Alex Maskey into the Lord Mayor's parlour in a move designed to make progress towards reconciliation, which was indeed what happened during the year. We now have a clearer understanding of precisely where we stand with SF than we otherwise would've had. Unionists, on the other hand, cosied up to representatives of active paramilitary groups for no better reason than keeping Nationalists out of power.

The SDLP of course has a fine heritage of commitment to complete non-violence. However, unfortunately the policies it currently adopts serve merely to shield those who haven't.

The choice is yours.

ulsterman

the 5-5 outcome was the Unionists' own fault for being so divided. It would now be 6-4.

IJP

To be honest I was not surprised by your advice. It is the default position to try and get people to vote for the party you support.

However you haven't taken account of the anti-appeasement as well as the anti-terrorism issue. Are there any Alliance councillers who are anti Belfast Agreement (from the anti appeasement side as opposed to the "continuity" IRA side because the appeasement did not go far enough quickly enough.)?

"Alliance put Alex Maskey into the Lord Mayor's parlour in a move designed to make progress towards reconciliation" I do not understand this. Regardless of what you put at the door of unionists, how could you do this? You do realise what SF/IRA have done and continue to do don't you? Did you/they really believe they had changed? If so what would make you believe this?

[when I say "you" I mean youe party unless it was actually your decision]

From my perspecive the comment you made about SDLP, to me can be laid at Alliance's door.