[EM] Hamilton vs Webster (Sainte-Lague)

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

You wrote:

I understand that LR/Hamilton may lead to the Alabama paradox and
people may dislike LR/Hamilton because of this. But I think LR/
Hamilton is quite proportional and unbiased.

I reply:

Hamilton is unbiased, as is Webster. But though Hamilton doesn't 
systematically deviate from proportionality so as to favor large or small 
states, it sporadically and randomly deviates from proportionality, in an 
unbiased way.

You continued:

Are there other reasons
why LR/Hamilton is not favoured?

I reply:

That's reason enough. Two kinds of nonmonotonicity: Population 
nonmonotonicity and House-size nonmonotonicitly. Your state can lose a seat 
because of a population change favoring your state with respect to the 
others, or because of an increase in the House's total number of seats.

You continued:

SL/Webster is close to LR/Hamilton

I reply:

Close in the sense of being unbiased.

You continued:

and avoids the Alabama paradox, but LR/Hamilton might still be
considered more exact in providing proportionality.

I reply:

Why? Hamilton's nonmonotonicity paradoxes are instances of 
unproportionality. And, as I said, Webster, and only Webster has the 
transfer property that I described. For example, given a Hamilton seat 
allocation, it could well be, due to Hamilton's random caprice, that if we 
take a seat from one state, and give it to another state, that seat transfer 
could reduce the factor by which those two states' votes per seat differ. 
Showing that the Hamilton allocation was suboptimal and need of improvement.

Milke Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Talk now to your Hotmail contacts with Windows Live Messenger. 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://get.live.com/messenger/overview