Santo Domingo.– A study by the Dominican Political Observatory (OPD), part of the Global Foundation for Democracy and Development (Funglode), examined the application of three seat distribution methods (D’Hondt, Webster or Sainte-Laguë, and simple majority) to the 2024 presidential and congressional elections in the Dominican Republic. The study found minimal differences between the D’Hondt and simple majority methods, while the Webster method resulted in a more equitable distribution of seats among political parties.

Key Findings

• D’Hondt vs. Simple Majority: The simple majority method would have altered results in 19 of 45 districts. The ruling party PRM would have increased its seats from 145 to 152, while opposition parties FP and PLD would have seen a reduction and slight increase, respectively.
• Webster Method: This method would have significantly redistributed seats, reducing PRM’s seats from 145 to 100, while increasing PLD and FP seats to 41 each.
• Seat Distribution: The study analyzed 178 territorial deputies plus seven from abroad, excluding the five national deputies.

Constitutional Debate

The OPD-Funglode study also addressed the debate on the constitutionality of the D’Hondt method. Some legislators argue it contradicts the constitution’s requirement for “universal and direct” voting. However, the Constitutional Court has ruled that the method complies with constitutional requirements, as the direct vote is maintained without intermediary interference.

Seat Distribution Methods

The study highlighted the two main types of methods for converting votes into seats:

• Divisor Methods: D’Hondt and Webster/Sainte-Laguë.
• Quotient Methods: Hare, Droop, and Imperiali.

The D’Hondt method, widely used in Latin America and Europe, is criticized for favoring majority parties at the expense of minorities. The discussion on replacing this method in the Dominican Republic emerged after the 2024 election results were announced.

Alternatives and Recommendations

The study also considered direct voting with preferential voting and simple majority allocation, which would yield similar results to the D’Hondt method. Researchers Vladimir Rozón and María Teresa Morales caution that changing the seat allocation method should be approached carefully, citing Ecuador’s experience with unsatisfactory results from similar changes.

Summary

The OPD-Funglode study concludes that while the D’Hondt and simple majority methods produce comparable results, the Webster method offers a more proportional distribution of seats. The constitutional debate continues, but the current method has been upheld by the Constitutional Court. Any changes to the seat distribution formula should be considered carefully to avoid unintended consequences.