This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Elections and Referendums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles New Zealand: Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the New Zealand politics task force (assessed as High-importance).

To do:

• Electorate boundary determination
• General expansion
• more sources (e.g. Boston et al., New Zealand Under MMP)
• description of Sainte-Lague
• when elections occur
• recalculate Gallagher Index on final result. Provisional figures at User:Fanx/NZ election#Gallagher Index, 2008

please add to list -- GeLuxe 07:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

It is hard to say that the tradition of elections being in November or December has fallen out of tradition, since all the elections that haven't, other than 1996, have been snap elections or the few elections after them where the latest possible date falls a few months short. Silenceisfoo 12:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I have advised the webmaster at elections.org.nz of the fact that clicking on the External Link Two Ticks? Too Easy! - MMP Basics gives a good 'ol 404: Page Not Found, so it should be fixed in a few days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinburton ( talk • contribs) 00:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC) reply

This article has been reverted to an earlier version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Text entered in [1] duplicated at least in part material from [2], [3] and [4]. Other content added by this contributor may have been copied from other sources and has been removed in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. Content added by other contributors subsequent to the introduction of this material can be restored if it does not merge with this text to create a derivative work. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. ---- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC) reply

• As far as I can see, there is no copyright issue with any of the sources that material comes from. Material taken from the New Zealand Electoral Commission is covered by this statement: The copyright in all materials contained or available on this website is subject to the copyright laws of New Zealand...You are free to use, store, copy and reproduce copyright content from this website for non-commercial purposes as long as you acknowledge this website as the source and include the document URL and its "last updated" date in your citation.
• Material taken from New Zealand History Online is covered by this statement: Unless otherwise stated, text on this website, and where specifically stated, individual images (the copyright of which is owned by Manatū Taonga), is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 New Zealand licence (Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial Licence). In essence, you are free to copy, distribute and adapt text works (and those images subject to this licence where specifically stated) for non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to Manatū Taonga and abide by the other licence terms. Offender9000 06:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I've just reverted your reversion ,as I say in my edit summary, the problem here is that both of the sites you mention only allow non-commercial use. Although Wikipedia itself is non-commercial we allow the use of Wikipedia content by all, including commercial entities, hence material on Wikipedia cannot be for non-commercial use only (and indeed, for similar reasons, must be licensed under one of the licenses listed at WP:CFAQ). Please do not restore this material without further discussion. Dpmuk ( talk) 07:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Wikepedia does not allow the use of content for commercial purposes. All text on Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike 3.0 Unported License which is a non-commercial licence. I have reverted your reversion. Please do not remove this material without further discussion. Offender9000 08:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Not so. Please read [5], where it clearly states:

You are free:
to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
to Remix — to adapt the work
to make commercial use of the work

Daveosaurus ( talk) 11:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Because of deletions by editors concerned about copyright, this article now contains no information on who has the right to vote in New Zealand, women getting the vote in New Zealand and nothing about Maori seats in parliament. There is a long history behind these issues - which need to be covered in this article. Offender9000 19:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The article is not locked from editing. You are very welcome to expand it, in line with the copyright requirements explained above and at your talk page. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC) reply

I have reverted this change in accordance with WP:TALK. It's important to maintain an accurate record of conversation. You should not alter notes to which somebody else has already responded without following the recommended practices there, such as clearly indicating what you've changed and when. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Electoral system of New Zealand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929223147/http://www.colinjames.co.nz/ODT/ODT_2011/ODT_11Jun14.htm to http://www.colinjames.co.nz/ODT/ODT_2011/ODT_11Jun14.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Electoral system of New Zealand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060410130617/http://www.elections.org.nz/mmp/sainte_lague.html to http://www.elections.org.nz/mmp/sainte_lague.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Saint-Lague is the most unbiased of the divisor allocation rules (which include Sainte-Lague, d’Hondt, & the U.S. apportionment-rule called Huntington-Hill or “equal-proportions).

Sainte-Lague is very slightly biased in favor of large parties. Huntington-Hill is about twice as biased, in favorable of small parties (states, actually, because it’s used for apportionment).

d’Hondt is much more strongly biased in favor of large parties.

There’s an entirely unbiased allocation-rule. It was proposed on 2006,under the name “Bias-Free”.

Where Sainte-Lague’sround-off point, R, between the consecutive seats-numbers a & b is:

(a+b)/2,

For Bias/Free, to calculator R:

Divide b^b by a^a. Then divide the result by e.

…where e is the base of the natural logarithms, = about 2.718…

That’s called the “identric mean” of a & b.

2600:6C55:7900:2B8:C9A3:8085:9BD7:6B7A ( talk) 23:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The text currently reads: list seats are allocated by the Sainte-Laguë method, which favours minor parties more than the alternative D'Hondt method That appears to be consistent with what you say. Or should that be reworded? Schwede 66 23:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I wouldn’t say that it favors small parties, because a lot of people believe that it actually does. I’d instead say that Sainte-Lague is unbiased for practical purposes, though it very slightly favors large parties. …& that d’Hondt very strongly favors large parties. 2600:6C55:7900:2B8:B1D2:139A:4D0D:3287 ( talk) 04:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC) reply