The 1790 apportionment results, and their bias test, demonstrate what I've
been saying: Hill signifiantly favors smaller states over larger ones, with
much more bias than Hamilton or Webster.
The greatest ratio by which s/q varies is minimized by Hill, of course. The
_differences_ in s/q are minimized by Webster. But I claim that what really
matters is Hill's systematic giving of more s/q to smaller states.
Systematically favoring large or small states is inexcusable for an
apportionment method.
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
Find sales, coupons, and free shipping, all in one place! MSN Shopping
Sales & Deals
http://shopping.msn.com/content/shp/?ctid=198,ptnrid=176,ptnrdata=200639
----
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
