[EM] Hamilton beats Hll in the example. Hill shows the most bias of the 3 methods.

[Dan Bishop]

MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
> 
> After testing Hill and Bias-Free in the 10-state example, it occurred to 
> me to also test Hamilton. Hamilton's allocation was about 2.8 times less 
> biased than that of Hill. Bias-Free had tested more than 3 times less 
> biased than Hill.
> 
> I'd said that Bias-Free and Hamilton are the completely unbiased 
> methods. The probability that, by chance, Hill would finish last, just 
> as I'd predicted, is of course only 1/3.
> 
> Though both are unbiased, one would expect Hamilton to probably do not 
> quite as well as Bias-Free, due to Hamilton's randomness. The 
> probability that, by chance, those 3 methods would finish in the 
> predicted order is only 1/6.
> 
> Surely Balinski & Young must have done apportionments for all the 
> historical censuses, by Hamilton, Webster and Hill, and compared those 
> allocations for bias. Has anyone done such comparisons?

http://www.brook.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb88.htm