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 ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info