[EM] Would would you say about a method that gives a seat to a 1-person state?
Dan Bishop
dbishop at aggienetwork.com
Tue Dec 19 16:09:33 PST 2006
raphfrk at netscape.net wrote:
> > From: nkklrp at hotmail.com
> >
> > 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.
>
> That is pretty cool, it will comply with the 1 seat per State rule
> 'natively'.
>
> Pity about the additional bias for higher numbers of seats.
>
> > 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".
>
> Right. Also, how small is the smallest State ?
Wyoming has about half a million people.
> > 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.
>
> Recognising that all States get 1 seat anyway, the critical point is for
> numbers greater than 1. I guess Webster is 1.5 and Hill is lower than
> that ?
Correct. Hill's cutoff is sqrt(2) = 1.4142135623730951. Not that far
from the Webster cutoff; in fact, as I've mentioned before, Webster and
Hill give identical apportionments this decade.
> > Unbias is absolutely essential for House apportionment. That means that
> > Hamilton and Bias-Free are the only methods that can be considered for
> > apportionment.
>
> It seems to me that they are all reasonably close. Unless you get rid of
> the 2 Senators per State rule, slight biases in the House apportionment
> are not very significant.
Furthermore, you could get a much better improvement in proportionality
by increasing the size of the House than by changing the apportionment
method.
> If you are going to settle for Webster, then settling for Hill isn't a major
> additional compromise.
Agreed.
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list