Joe--
You wrote:
The issue of whether or not a particular method of apportionment is
biased is rather complex it seems to me.
I reply:
If we consistently and systematically give more seats per person to smaller
states, that is biased.
That's what Hill does. Hill is biased.
That's what bias is: A systematic disparity in seats per person. Plainly
Hill has that, and plainly Webster does not have it. Complex? I suggest that
Huntington and Hill invented complexity that isn't really there.
I agree that Huntington and Hill managed to obfuscate the subject for
Congress, and may have come up with their own creative and complicated
definitions of prioportionality and bias. But those things have simple
definitions that are universally agreed-upon.
As for how to deal with the requriement that each state get a House seat,
that's a separate subject. Of course Hill, just by its own rules,
automatically gives a seat to every state that contains at least one person.
But I think that most people interpret the Constitution as saying to give
each state a seat, and then allocate the other seats in proportion to
population.
By systematically favoring small states, Hill is in clear violation of the
Constitution.
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
WIN up to $10,000 in cash or prizes enter the Microsoft Office Live
Sweepstakes http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/aub0050001581mrt/direct/01/
----
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
