josh.narins at lehman.com
Wed Feb 5 10:27:45 PST 2003
The article is kinda funny.
One, as I already showed, the smallest states get less than their share in
2000, and they got less than their share in 1990 (which I have checked, but
not shown here)
The article states "Of course, politics also played a role in the outcome,
as it always has: the switch from Webster's to Hill's method in 1941 gave
one more seat to Arkansas and one less to Michigan, which essentially
guaranteed one more seat for the Democrats (the majority party)."
However, iirc, the census of 1940 had the rules from the previous census
applied, and the MEP was not applied to census data until 1950's census.
So, the "politics" he is referring to didn't exist.
Although his chart at the end is impressive, it pales compared to the charts
I will show.
My website is "working" but it still requires a lot of work, and I had no
plans to include this material == more work still
ciao for now
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Olli Salmi [mailto:olli.salmi at uusikaupunki.fi]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 12:21 PM
> To: election-methods-list at eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: Population paradox
> >I wouldn't go so far as to say that MEP is unquestionably
> 'the fairest' of
> >all possible methods. As far as I know, each of the
> standard (and each of
> >many nonstandard) House Apportionment methods can be got as
> the solution to
> >maximizing a weighted average of individual citizens'
> utilities - using a
> >suitable utility function - of the citizen's 'representation share'.
> Webster's method favours large and small states (or parties) equally.
> Olli Salmi
> For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe,
> FAQ, etc),
> please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
This message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the designated recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. This communication is for information purposes only and should not be regarded as an offer to sell or as a solicitation of an offer to buy any financial product, an official confirmation of any transaction, or as an official statement of Lehman Brothers. Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free. Therefore, we do not represent that this information is complete or accurate and it should not be relied upon as such. All information is subject to change without notice.
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc),
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
More information about the Election-Methods