Say, for a particular census, we do allocations bv Hill and by Bias-Free. Say your measure of proportional disparity is the _ratio_ of s/q, rather than its difference. So, by that standard, any trransfer of a seat, starting with the Hill allocation, will put the two affected states more disparate in their s/q.
But say, as should usually be the case, the Bias-Free allocation is less biased, by some tests for bias. How to choose between those two allocations and their justifying standards? 1) The Hill transfer property is about your state's s/q disparity with a particular state, whichever one is involved in the disagreement between the 2 allocations. Bias-Free's unbias is overall. 2) There's a difference in _when_ the s/q disparity is looked at. With Hill's transfer property, the disparilty is looked at after the count, juding the s/q disparity of those two states in hindsight. Bias-Free's unbias means a uniform s/q expectation for _all_ states, as judged before the apportionment and the census. And of course, the time when you're deciding which method to advocate or adopt is a time before the census, and certainly before the allocation. So it makes the most sense to choose the method that gets rid of s/q expectation disparity as judged at a time _before_ the census and allocation. Mike Ossipoff _________________________________________________________________ Get free, personalized commercial-free online radio with MSN Radio powered by Pandora http://radio.msn.com/?icid=T002MSN03A07001 ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
