This was performed in response to Mike's argument that Hill's
apportionment method is more biased than Webster's. (As you will see,
he's right.) In my simulation, I assumed:
* There are 50 states and 435 seats.
* Each state is guaranteed one seat. That is, a state with population p
is given
At 11:39 PM 12/10/2006, Warren Smith wrote:
> claim by this same (standard) definition, all other apportionment
>methods so far discussed, generically exhibit bias.
Note that Asset Voting with precinct-based vote transfers produces
virtual districts and practically exact proportional representat
To clarify:
I claim my randomized rounding method has zero bias.
This is based on the mathematical defintion of bias used by statisticians:
a quantity whose expectation value is the value it is supposed to be, is
"unbiased" otherwise it is "biased."
You can design it to leave X unbiased where X i
