54:
1004:
1479:
office. Only in the case that List 1 doubles the voting of List 2 will List 1 be able to get two seats, even if, like in Case 3, the second elected candidate of the most supported list received the fewest votes of all the candidates of the two majorities. The system makes it difficult for minority parties to elect candidates: in Case 4, candidate 3A receives the most votes, but under the binomial system, candidates 1A and 2A will be elected.
139:
979:
1646:
991:
1632:
personality-centered populist regimes that have been common throughout the history of Latin
America. It has also been argued that it fosters consensus-building, debate and negotiation. Finally the point of representation is often cited in defense of the binomial system, as it provides a representation to the big minority that first-past-the-post systems don't.
1196:
candidate, and unless the list which obtained a majority has double the voting as the second most supported list, each of the two lists gets one of their candidates, the one who got the most voting, into office. In other words, the binomial system basically means that the first (absolute or relative majority i.e:
1478:
The most common case is Case 2, in which one list gets a total voting that is higher than the other but both get exactly the same number of candidates elected, candidates 1A and 2A respectively. In the unlikely case that both lists get exactly the same number of votes each gets a candidate into
1482:
As can be seen, the binomial system acts to equalize the representation of the second largest party to the point of making it roughly equal, or only slightly smaller, than that of the party winning at least a plurality. Furthermore, it acts to exclude any minority from the process, in practice
1631:
The binomial system, proponents argue, acts to stabilize the political situation by making it almost impossible for a single political bloc or coalition to make important choices in a one-sided manner. This in turn leads to great political stability and prevents the emergence of the long-term
1195:
The system works in the following manner: Parties and independent candidates group themselves into lists or coalitions, basically electoral blocs. Each list proposes up to two candidates per electoral region, province, or other geographical unit. Votes are first tallied by list instead of by
1084:(hence the name) representatives to the legislative body. The fact that only two candidates are elected in each district results in the peculiarity where the second most supported list is over-represented. Its use was prescribed in the respective constitutional organic law during the
1483:
generating a locked two-party, or two-bloc, system in which it is exceedingly difficult for one of the blocs to get an upper hand on the other. The table below posits the electoral results of the 2005 lower chamber parliamentary elections with three different voting systems.
1706:
Critics of this system argue that it makes for a flawed democracy, as it does not necessarily elect the candidate who received the most votes. Furthermore, it effectively excludes the smaller political forces that are not a part of either of the two big electoral alliances.
1148:
where the two major parties each take maximum half the seats in the legislature (unless in enough districts the larger party can win with a landslide - in this case double the amount of votes as the runner-up party).
1200:) and the second largest party get equal representation unless the majority doubles the second. For example, in the following cases the candidate that would get elected under a binomial system are marked with an :
1167:(DMP) system, often shortened to dual-member proportional, a system invented in 2013 (the same year the binomial system was abolished in Chile). This method is different from the binomial system, being a
1903:
1032:
37:
This article is about the dual-member open list D'Hondt method formerly used in Chile. For the algorithm for proportional representation across two dimensions, see
1497:
1922:
723:
1156:, despite the similarity in name, although it is technically proportional both geographically and within districts, biproportional systems used a unified
1172:
755:
617:
612:
1667:
1183:
mechanism (based on the national or regional popular vote). Under DMP, a voter can vote for pairs of candidates on their ballot, functioning as a
1164:
1025:
718:
42:
1129:
400:
924:
175:
1723:
75:
1018:
1761:
1693:
97:
919:
1180:
1137:
909:
659:
630:
570:
1778:
1812:"Divisor methods for proportional representation systems: An optimization approach to vector and matrix apportionment problems"
1117:
1100:
641:
166:
1671:
704:
1160:
for determining how many seats each region gets and to achieve party proportionality on the whole, based on the votes cast.
346:
331:
316:
1153:
962:
582:
505:
426:
38:
1749:
1133:
394:
376:
217:
1872:
1656:
947:
68:
62:
1932:
1927:
1525:
838:
821:
788:
768:
552:
540:
510:
311:
269:
202:
1675:
1660:
1099:
regime, in order to foster political stability in the democratization process, maintaining the preeminence of the
646:
694:
687:
171:
79:
748:
676:
665:
528:
515:
498:
475:
453:
416:
406:
1850:
1109:, being recognized as a system that promoted consensus and negotiation between opposing sides of government.
874:
728:
411:
1811:
1168:
1128:
The term binomial system refers to the dual-member districts the system uses. Within these districts, the
903:
783:
713:
520:
1113:
811:
651:
535:
341:
320:
252:
230:
31:
1516:
1003:
869:
942:
929:
897:
161:
1096:
848:
682:
335:
1197:
1062:
1008:
879:
490:
274:
957:
1831:
1757:
1508:
1105:
1069:
914:
884:
806:
743:
577:
304:
279:
262:
130:
41:. For the mixed proportional voting system using two member districts proposed in Canada, see
1892:
1854:
1823:
1176:
1141:
1050:
995:
952:
843:
831:
545:
421:
247:
241:
223:
212:
207:
195:
156:
118:
1085:
983:
816:
671:
636:
557:
468:
371:
294:
236:
114:
1750:
El amarre institucional del
General Pinochet y las restricciones de la transición chilena
1893:
La lógica oculta de la selección de candidatos en las elecciones parlamentarias chilenas
138:
1774:
853:
793:
778:
589:
458:
433:
284:
978:
1916:
1827:
1785:
1145:
1058:
862:
562:
350:
188:
151:
126:
602:
366:
359:
289:
1784:. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Archived from
1645:
1184:
480:
438:
381:
326:
1136:, but because of the small district magnitude it is across the whole assembly,
17:
1835:
1157:
1073:
448:
443:
1140:. In practice, because there are only two seats and Chile operates under a
990:
1858:
699:
485:
1092:
1851:
Dual-Member Mixed
Proportional: A New Electoral System for Canada
1112:
The binomial system was considered by most analysts as the main
1754:
Globalización, identidad y democracia: México y América Latina
1639:
47:
137:
1202:
1132:
method (between parties, not candidates) is technically
1187:
locally, but as a best loser system for compensation.
1756:(I edición). México: Siglo Veintiuno Editores. p. 94.
1810:
Gaffke, Norbert; Pukelsheim, Friedrich (2008-09-01).
1521:left wing progressives, ecologists, and others)
30:For the naming system used by biologists, see
1026:
8:
1103:against the rise of the opposition movement
1779:"Chile: A System Frozen by Elite Interests"
1674:. Unsourced material may be challenged and
1152:The binomial system is also distinct from
1033:
1019:
109:
1694:Learn how and when to remove this message
98:Learn how and when to remove this message
1752:». En Labastida, Julio; Camou, Antonio.
1724:"Electoral reform in Chile: Tie breaker"
1485:
1173:mixed-member proportional representation
61:This article includes a list of general
1715:
1163:It is also not to be confused with the
125:
43:Dual-member proportional representation
1904:Sistema Binomial: Consensos y disensos
1879:, Vol.26 N°1 (2006), pp. 226–235.
1524:
1515:
1507:
1496:
7:
1672:adding citations to reliable sources
1091:The binomial system was invented in
1923:Semi-proportional electoral systems
1908:Reforma al Sistema Binomial chileno
67:it lacks sufficient corresponding
27:Semi-proportional electoral system
25:
1873:Las virtudes del sistema binomial
1853:(Report). University of Alberta.
1116:that prevented completion of the
1061:that was used in the legislative
1828:10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2008.01.004
1644:
1175:by allocating the first seat by
1002:
989:
977:
925:McKelvey–Schofield chaos theorem
571:Semi-proportional representation
203:First preference plurality (FPP)
52:
1495:
1118:Chilean transition to democracy
1849:Graham, Sean (April 4, 2016).
1165:dual-member mixed proportional
963:Harsanyi's utilitarian theorem
920:Moulin's impossibility theorem
885:Conflicting majorities paradox
1:
789:Frustrated majorities paradox
1899:, No.98 (2005), pp. 189-225.
1816:Mathematical Social Sciences
1179:, and the second within the
1154:biproportional apportionment
1101:Polish United Workers' Party
958:Condorcet dominance theorems
898:Social and collective choice
39:Biproportional apportionment
1877:Revista de Ciencia Política
1594:
1565:
1536:
1068:The binomial system is the
624:By mechanism of combination
395:Proportional representation
1949:
1595:
1566:
1537:
1512:(right wing conservatives)
1144:, the rule behaves like a
822:Multiple districts paradox
553:Fractional approval voting
541:Interactive representation
36:
29:
1492:Coalitions and Movements
1491:
1488:
1208:
1205:
769:Paradoxes and pathologies
618:Mixed-member proportional
613:Mixed-member majoritarian
608:By results of combination
499:Approval-based committees
1124:Name and similar methods
1065:between 1989 and 2013.
948:Condorcet's jury theorem
749:Double simultaneous vote
724:Rural–urban proportional
719:Dual-member proportional
681:
670:
637:Parallel (superposition)
529:Fractional social choice
516:Expanding approvals rule
345:
330:
315:
246:
235:
211:
1146:power-sharing agreement
1095:in the 1980s under the
875:Tyranny of the majority
652:Fusion (majority bonus)
469:Quota-remainder methods
82:more precise citations.
1054:
1009:Mathematics portal
915:Majority impossibility
904:Impossibility theorems
700:Negative vote transfer
521:Method of equal shares
142:
1748:Maira, Luis (2001). «
1532:regionalist movement)
1080:constituency returns
812:Best-is-worst paradox
801:Pathological response
536:Direct representation
189:Single-winner methods
141:
32:Binomial nomenclature
1891:Siavelis, Peter M.:
1859:10.7939/r3-qppp-b676
1668:improve this section
1596:Proportional System
996:Economics portal
943:Median voter theorem
162:Comparative politics
1114:constitutional lock
1097:Wojciech Jaruzelski
984:Politics portal
695:Vote linkage system
666:Seat linkage system
253:Ranked-choice (RCV)
1730:. 14 February 2015
1517:Juntos Podemos Más
1063:elections of Chile
880:Discursive dilemma
839:Lesser evil voting
714:Supermixed systems
417:Largest remainders
275:Round-robin voting
143:
1933:Polish inventions
1928:Politics of Chile
1897:Estudios Públicos
1871:Carey, John M.: "
1791:on 5 January 2015
1704:
1703:
1696:
1624:
1623:
1533:
1522:
1513:
1505:
1476:
1475:
1472:
1467:
1462:
1457:
1452:
1445:
1440:
1435:
1430:
1425:
1389:
1384:
1379:
1374:
1369:
1362:
1357:
1352:
1347:
1342:
1306:
1301:
1296:
1291:
1286:
1279:
1274:
1269:
1264:
1259:
1138:semi-proportional
1055:Sistema binominal
1043:
1042:
930:Gibbard's theorem
870:Dominance paradox
807:Perverse response
511:Phragmen's method
377:Majority judgment
305:Positional voting
263:Condorcet methods
131:electoral systems
108:
107:
100:
16:(Redirected from
1940:
1902:Von Baer, Ena: "
1880:
1869:
1863:
1862:
1846:
1840:
1839:
1807:
1801:
1800:
1798:
1796:
1790:
1783:
1771:
1765:
1746:
1740:
1739:
1737:
1735:
1720:
1699:
1692:
1688:
1685:
1679:
1648:
1640:
1567:Direct Election
1531:
1520:
1511:
1503:
1486:
1470:
1465:
1460:
1455:
1450:
1443:
1438:
1433:
1428:
1423:
1387:
1382:
1377:
1372:
1367:
1360:
1355:
1350:
1345:
1340:
1304:
1299:
1294:
1289:
1284:
1277:
1272:
1267:
1262:
1257:
1203:
1142:two-party system
1035:
1028:
1021:
1007:
1006:
994:
993:
982:
981:
937:Positive results
832:Strategic voting
729:Majority jackpot
686:
675:
546:Liquid democracy
422:National remnant
412:Highest averages
349:
334:
319:
251:
242:Alternative vote
240:
224:Partisan primary
216:
157:Mechanism design
110:
103:
96:
92:
89:
83:
78:this article by
69:inline citations
56:
55:
48:
21:
1948:
1947:
1943:
1942:
1941:
1939:
1938:
1937:
1913:
1912:
1888:
1883:
1870:
1866:
1848:
1847:
1843:
1809:
1808:
1804:
1794:
1792:
1788:
1781:
1775:Huneeus, Carlos
1773:
1772:
1768:
1747:
1743:
1733:
1731:
1722:
1721:
1717:
1713:
1700:
1689:
1683:
1680:
1665:
1649:
1638:
1629:
1527:
1526:Fuerza Regional
1499:
1193:
1191:Characteristics
1171:which provides
1126:
1086:Pinochet regime
1047:binomial system
1039:
1001:
1000:
988:
976:
968:
967:
934:
910:Arrow's theorem
900:
890:
889:
858:
828:
817:No-show paradox
798:
784:Cloning paradox
774:Spoiler effects
771:
761:
760:
735:
622:
605:
595:
594:
567:
558:Maximal lottery
525:
506:Thiele's method
495:
465:
397:
387:
386:
372:Approval voting
360:Cardinal voting
356:
301:
295:Maximal lottery
259:
191:
181:
104:
93:
87:
84:
74:Please help to
73:
57:
53:
46:
35:
28:
23:
22:
18:Binomial voting
15:
12:
11:
5:
1946:
1944:
1936:
1935:
1930:
1925:
1915:
1914:
1911:
1910:
1900:
1887:
1884:
1882:
1881:
1864:
1841:
1822:(2): 166–184.
1802:
1766:
1741:
1714:
1712:
1709:
1702:
1701:
1652:
1650:
1643:
1637:
1634:
1628:
1625:
1622:
1621:
1618:
1615:
1612:
1609:
1606:
1603:
1600:
1597:
1593:
1592:
1589:
1586:
1583:
1580:
1577:
1574:
1571:
1568:
1564:
1563:
1560:
1557:
1554:
1551:
1548:
1545:
1542:
1539:
1535:
1534:
1523:
1514:
1506:
1494:
1493:
1490:
1489:Election Type
1474:
1473:
1468:
1463:
1458:
1453:
1447:
1446:
1441:
1436:
1431:
1426:
1420:
1419:
1414:
1409:
1404:
1399:
1391:
1390:
1385:
1380:
1375:
1370:
1364:
1363:
1358:
1353:
1348:
1343:
1337:
1336:
1331:
1326:
1321:
1316:
1308:
1307:
1302:
1297:
1292:
1287:
1281:
1280:
1275:
1270:
1265:
1260:
1254:
1253:
1248:
1243:
1238:
1233:
1225:
1224:
1221:
1218:
1215:
1211:
1210:
1207:
1192:
1189:
1125:
1122:
1070:D'Hondt method
1041:
1040:
1038:
1037:
1030:
1023:
1015:
1012:
1011:
999:
998:
986:
973:
970:
969:
966:
965:
960:
955:
950:
945:
933:
932:
927:
922:
917:
912:
901:
896:
895:
892:
891:
888:
887:
882:
877:
872:
857:
856:
854:Turkey-raising
851:
846:
841:
827:
826:
825:
824:
814:
809:
797:
796:
794:Center squeeze
791:
786:
781:
779:Spoiler effect
772:
767:
766:
763:
762:
759:
758:
753:
752:
751:
738:By ballot type
734:
733:
732:
731:
726:
721:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
702:
692:
691:
690:
679:
656:
655:
654:
649:
644:
639:
621:
620:
615:
606:
601:
600:
597:
596:
593:
592:
590:Limited voting
587:
586:
585:
566:
565:
560:
555:
550:
549:
548:
543:
524:
523:
518:
513:
508:
494:
493:
488:
483:
478:
464:
463:
462:
461:
459:Localized list
456:
451:
446:
441:
431:
430:
429:
427:Biproportional
424:
419:
414:
398:
393:
392:
389:
388:
385:
384:
379:
374:
369:
355:
354:
339:
324:
300:
299:
298:
297:
292:
287:
282:
272:
258:
257:
256:
255:
244:
231:Instant-runoff
228:
227:
226:
218:Jungle primary
205:
194:Single vote -
192:
187:
186:
183:
182:
180:
179:
169:
164:
159:
154:
148:
145:
144:
134:
133:
123:
122:
106:
105:
60:
58:
51:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1945:
1934:
1931:
1929:
1926:
1924:
1921:
1920:
1918:
1909:
1905:
1901:
1898:
1894:
1890:
1889:
1885:
1878:
1874:
1868:
1865:
1860:
1856:
1852:
1845:
1842:
1837:
1833:
1829:
1825:
1821:
1817:
1813:
1806:
1803:
1787:
1780:
1776:
1770:
1767:
1763:
1762:968-23-2300-2
1759:
1755:
1751:
1745:
1742:
1729:
1728:The Economist
1725:
1719:
1716:
1710:
1708:
1698:
1695:
1687:
1684:November 2013
1677:
1673:
1669:
1663:
1662:
1658:
1653:This section
1651:
1647:
1642:
1641:
1635:
1633:
1626:
1619:
1616:
1613:
1610:
1607:
1604:
1601:
1598:
1590:
1587:
1584:
1581:
1578:
1575:
1572:
1569:
1561:
1558:
1555:
1552:
1549:
1546:
1543:
1540:
1529:
1528:Independiente
1518:
1510:
1501:
1487:
1484:
1480:
1469:
1464:
1459:
1454:
1449:
1448:
1442:
1437:
1432:
1427:
1422:
1421:
1418:
1415:
1413:
1410:
1408:
1405:
1403:
1400:
1398:
1397:
1393:
1392:
1386:
1381:
1376:
1371:
1366:
1365:
1359:
1354:
1349:
1344:
1339:
1338:
1335:
1332:
1330:
1327:
1325:
1322:
1320:
1317:
1315:
1314:
1310:
1309:
1303:
1298:
1293:
1288:
1283:
1282:
1276:
1271:
1266:
1261:
1256:
1255:
1252:
1249:
1247:
1244:
1242:
1239:
1237:
1234:
1232:
1231:
1227:
1226:
1222:
1219:
1216:
1213:
1212:
1204:
1201:
1199:
1190:
1188:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1161:
1159:
1155:
1150:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1130:apportionment
1123:
1121:
1119:
1115:
1110:
1108:
1107:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1089:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1066:
1064:
1060:
1059:voting system
1056:
1052:
1048:
1036:
1031:
1029:
1024:
1022:
1017:
1016:
1014:
1013:
1010:
1005:
997:
992:
987:
985:
980:
975:
974:
972:
971:
964:
961:
959:
956:
954:
953:May's theorem
951:
949:
946:
944:
941:
940:
939:
938:
931:
928:
926:
923:
921:
918:
916:
913:
911:
908:
907:
906:
905:
899:
894:
893:
886:
883:
881:
878:
876:
873:
871:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:majority rule
861:Paradoxes of
855:
852:
850:
847:
845:
842:
840:
837:
836:
835:
834:
833:
823:
820:
819:
818:
815:
813:
810:
808:
805:
804:
803:
802:
795:
792:
790:
787:
785:
782:
780:
777:
776:
775:
770:
765:
764:
757:
754:
750:
747:
746:
745:
742:
741:
740:
739:
730:
727:
725:
722:
720:
717:
716:
715:
712:
706:
703:
701:
698:
697:
696:
693:
689:
684:
680:
678:
673:
669:
668:
667:
664:
663:
662:
661:
657:
653:
650:
648:
645:
643:
640:
638:
635:
634:
633:
632:
627:
626:
625:
619:
616:
614:
611:
610:
609:
604:
603:Mixed systems
599:
598:
591:
588:
584:
581:
580:
579:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
564:
563:Random ballot
561:
559:
556:
554:
551:
547:
544:
542:
539:
538:
537:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
522:
519:
517:
514:
512:
509:
507:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
492:
489:
487:
484:
482:
479:
477:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
460:
457:
455:
452:
450:
447:
445:
442:
440:
437:
436:
435:
432:
428:
425:
423:
420:
418:
415:
413:
410:
409:
408:
407:Apportionment
405:
404:
403:
402:
396:
391:
390:
383:
380:
378:
375:
373:
370:
368:
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
352:
348:
343:
342:Antiplurality
340:
337:
333:
328:
325:
322:
318:
313:
310:
309:
308:
307:
306:
296:
293:
291:
288:
286:
283:
281:
278:
277:
276:
273:
271:
270:Condorcet-IRV
268:
267:
266:
265:
264:
254:
249:
245:
243:
238:
234:
233:
232:
229:
225:
222:
221:
219:
214:
209:
206:
204:
201:
200:
199:
197:
190:
185:
184:
177:
173:
170:
168:
165:
163:
160:
158:
155:
153:
152:Social choice
150:
149:
147:
146:
140:
136:
135:
132:
128:
127:Social choice
124:
120:
116:
112:
111:
102:
99:
91:
88:November 2010
81:
77:
71:
70:
64:
59:
50:
49:
44:
40:
33:
19:
1907:
1896:
1886:Bibliography
1876:
1867:
1844:
1819:
1815:
1805:
1793:. Retrieved
1786:the original
1769:
1753:
1744:
1732:. Retrieved
1727:
1718:
1705:
1690:
1681:
1666:Please help
1654:
1630:
1504:centre-left)
1498:Concertación
1481:
1477:
1451:Candidate 3B
1424:Candidate 3A
1416:
1411:
1406:
1401:
1395:
1394:
1368:Candidate 2B
1341:Candidate 2A
1333:
1328:
1323:
1318:
1312:
1311:
1285:Candidate 1B
1258:Candidate 1A
1250:
1245:
1240:
1235:
1229:
1228:
1194:
1181:compensation
1169:mixed system
1162:
1151:
1134:proportional
1127:
1111:
1104:
1090:
1081:
1077:
1067:
1046:
1044:
936:
935:
902:
860:
859:
844:Exaggeration
830:
829:
800:
799:
773:
737:
736:
705:Mixed ballot
660:Compensatory
658:
631:compensatory
628:
623:
607:
569:
568:
527:
526:
497:
496:
467:
466:
454:List-free PR
399:
367:Score voting
358:
357:
303:
302:
290:Ranked pairs
261:
260:
193:
94:
85:
66:
1500:Democrática
1185:closed list
744:Single vote
647:Conditional
642:Coexistence
491:Quota Borda
481:Schulze STV
439:Closed list
382:STAR voting
327:Borda count
80:introducing
1917:Categories
1711:References
1106:Solidarity
849:Truncation
578:Cumulative
401:Party-list
176:By country
167:Comparison
63:references
1836:0165-4896
1655:does not
1636:Criticism
1627:Rationale
1538:Binomial
1198:plurality
1177:plurality
1158:algorithm
1074:open list
756:Dual-vote
449:Panachage
444:Open list
434:List type
312:Plurality
208:Two-round
196:plurality
119:Economics
1795:17 March
1734:17 March
1072:with an
476:Hare STV
115:Politics
113:A joint
1676:removed
1661:sources
1605:46 dip.
1599:62 dip.
1576:50 dip.
1570:69 dip.
1547:54 dip.
1541:65 dip.
1509:Alianza
1223:Case 4
1057:) is a
1051:Spanish
486:CPO-STV
336:Baldwin
285:Schulze
280:Minimax
198:methods
76:improve
1895:", en
1875:", en
1834:
1760:
1620:0.83%
1617:1 dip.
1611:9 dip.
1591:0.83%
1588:1 dip.
1582:0 dip.
1562:0.83%
1559:1 dip.
1553:0 dip.
1396:List 3
1313:List 2
1230:List 1
1220:Case 3
1217:Case 2
1214:Case 1
1209:Cases
1206:Lists
1093:Poland
1076:where
351:Coombs
121:series
65:, but
1906:, en
1789:(PDF)
1782:(PDF)
1608:38.3%
1602:51.6%
1579:41.6%
1573:57.5%
1550:45.0%
1544:54.2%
1078:every
688:'MMP'
677:'AMS'
1832:ISSN
1797:2015
1758:ISBN
1736:2015
1659:any
1657:cite
1614:7.5%
1585:0.0%
1556:0.0%
1361:18%
1351:18%
1346:22%
1300:10%
1278:20%
1273:50%
1268:30%
1263:30%
1045:The
629:Non-
583:SNTV
172:List
129:and
117:and
1855:doi
1824:doi
1670:by
1530:, (
1519:, (
1444:26%
1434:11%
1429:11%
1417:28%
1412:10%
1407:20%
1402:20%
1388:15%
1383:12%
1378:12%
1373:18%
1356:18%
1334:33%
1329:30%
1324:30%
1319:40%
1305:19%
1295:20%
1290:10%
1251:39%
1246:60%
1241:50%
1236:40%
1082:two
347:el.
332:el.
321:IRV
317:el.
1919::
1830:.
1820:56
1818:.
1814:.
1777:.
1726:.
1471:2%
1466:4%
1461:9%
1456:9%
1439:6%
1120:.
1088:.
1053::
683:NZ
672:UK
248:US
237:UK
220:)
213:US
1861:.
1857::
1838:.
1826::
1799:.
1764:.
1738:.
1697:)
1691:(
1686:)
1682:(
1678:.
1664:.
1502:(
1049:(
1034:e
1027:t
1020:v
685::
674::
353:)
344:(
338:)
329:(
323:)
314:(
250::
239::
215::
210:(
178:)
174:(
101:)
95:(
90:)
86:(
72:.
45:.
34:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
