Talk:Rural–urban proportional representation

Unsourced additions by Glide08
, please revert yourself immediately unless you have reliable sources that are verifiable for your claims. We don't just "take an editor's word for it" for content additions: they need to be sourced to third-party reputable sources others can verify. —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The descriptions of the 1918 Danish and 1946-59 Icelandic systems in the Background section are sourced.
 * The precise quotes are:
 * For Denmark (JSTOR link for the source):
 * "The present Folketing is elected every four years and consists of 140 members. Of these, 24 are allotted to the capital city and are elected according to the list system of proportional representation, d'Hondt's method of distribution being employed. The remaining 116 members are elected from the Islands and from Jutland peninsula, the two parts into which the kingdom, outside of Copenhagen and Fredriksberg, is divided for certain purposes. […] The Islands, including the Faroe Islands as a special district, are divided into 42 single-member districts and Jutland into 51. The election is a contest among candidates for these 93 district seats. The high man in each district is declared elected, and then 23 additional seats are distributed among the less successful political parties so as to bring about as proportional a party representation as possible."
 * "In the first distribution of additional seats, nine are allotted by law to the Islands and 11 to Jutland. This gives the Islands 51 seats and Jutland 63."
 * "The law provides for three more additional seats, one for the Islands and two for Jutland. Copenhagen does not share in this distribution, but its party votes are counted in with those of the rest of the kingdom in determining their allotment, thus bringing about a closer approximation to a proportional party representation than would be the case if Copenhagen's vote were disregarded."
 * "The new election law is manifestly a compromise. Copenhagen, with its large radical vote, has been given proportional representation. The modified single-member district plan outside of Copenhagen is a compromise between those who favor the old plan and those who demand proportional representation. It remains to be seen whether it will prove a stepping-stone toward proportional representation or, justifying the hopes of its friends, continue as a permanent institution. Even though the plan proves successful, it need not be extended to Copenhagen; for it is possible that the urban conditions of the capital city may be better met by proportional representation."
 * For Iceland (link to the source):
 * "The 1942 electoral system enshrined a mixed system: the lower tier was a mix of SMP, PR in 2MDs, and PR in one 8MD (Reykjavík); this was supplemented by a nationwide upper tier with 11 seats."
 * "Districts and district magnitude. Both the electoral law and the Constitution stipulated that there would be 21 SMDs, six 2MDs, and one 8MD (Reykjavík) (1942 Electoral Law, Article 5). In addition, there would be 11 national compensation members. These were not assigned to districts (as they are now)."
 * "Allocation of seats to parties at the lower tier. Allocation in SMDs was by simple plurality. In the 2MDs and in Reykjavík, d’Hondt was used."
 * "Allocation of seats to parties in the upper tier. D’Hondt was used on a compensatory basis. Specifically, all votes across the country were counted, but the first divisor for each party was one greater than the number of seats the party had won in the districts."
 * Glide08 (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)