[EM] Would would you say about a method that gives a seat to a 1-person state?

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

The examples dramatize Hill's bias, but would could be more dramatic than 
this?:

If we dildn't have the 1-free-seat-for-each-state rule, Hill would give 
everyone a seat anyway, but Hill's own rules. It would give a seat to any 
state that contains at least one person. How do you like that for dramatic 
bias.

If you had any doubt about Hill's bias, that should settle the matter. 
Someone might say, "But that doesn't happen, due to the free seats". That's 
like saying, "Some are concered that the the king, who makes all of our 
country's important decisions, is drastically irrational. But, don't worry: 
We keep him restrained so he can't bite anyone."

While Hill's round-up point between 0 and 1 is at 0, Bias-Free's round-up 
point in that range is near .38  That is, 1/e. Webster's round off point in 
that range, of course, is at .5  So, though Webster is biased, it's bias 
isn't of the dramatic nature of Hill's bias.

Unbias is absolutely essential for House apportionment. That means that 
Hamilton and Bias-Free are the only methods that can be considered for 
apportionment.

When Hill's significant bias is shown to Congress, they should want to 
replace it with something unbiased. Then, Bias-Free and Hamilton should be 
offered to Congress, and it would be up to them whether they want the ideal 
(Bias-Free), or something less elaborate, and more traditional and 
precedented (Hamilton).

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Get free, personalized commercial-free online radio with MSN Radio powered 
by Pandora http://radio.msn.com/?icid=T002MSN03A07001