Federal states in the context of "Webster's method"

Ratification is a principal's legal confirmation of an act of its agent. In international law, ratification is the process by which a state declares its consent to be bound to a treaty. In the case of bilateral treaties, ratification is usually accomplished by exchanging the requisite instruments, and in the case of multilateral treaties, the usual procedure is for the depositary to collect the ratifications of all states, keeping all parties informed of the situation.

The institution of ratification grants states the necessary time-frame to seek the required approval for the treaty on the domestic level and to enact the necessary legislation to give domestic effect to that treaty. The term applies to private contract law, international treaties, and constitutions in federal states such as the United States and Canada. The term is also used in parliamentary procedure in deliberative assemblies.

The D'Hondt method, also called the Jefferson method or the greatest divisors method, is an apportionment method for allocating seats in parliaments among federal states, or in proportional representation among political parties. It belongs to the class of highest-averages methods. Compared to ideal proportional representation, the D'Hondt method reduces somewhat the political fragmentation for smaller electoral district sizes, where it favors larger political parties over small parties.

The method was first described in 1792 by American Secretary of State and later President of the United States Thomas Jefferson. It was re-invented independently in 1878 by Belgian mathematician Victor D'Hondt, which is the reason for its two different names.

Seat bias is a property describing methods of apportionment. These are methods used to allocate seats in a parliament among federal states or among political parties. A method is biased if it systematically favors small parties over large parties, or vice versa. There are several mathematical measures of bias, which can disagree slightly, but all measures broadly agree that rules based on Droop's quota or Jefferson's method are strongly biased in favor of large parties, while rules based on Webster's method, Hill's method, or Hare's quota have low levels of bias, with the differences being sufficiently small that different definitions of bias produce different results.