Joseph Malkevitch wrote: > > How do YOU measure bias [of an apportionment method]? > > Can you provide the data for bias based on your definition of small > state and bias?
Although I'm not the one who was asked, I'll propose a method of measuring the bias of an apportionment method: Compute the correlation between states' populations and their seats/population ratio. For apportionments based on the 2000 Census (http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/tab01.txt), the biases of each method are: *** Divisor Method with geometric rounding (Huntington-Hill) *** -0.0163 (Pearson) -0.0894 (Spearman) *** Divisor Method with arithmetic rounding (Webster) *** For the 2000 Census, produces the same apportionment as H-H. -0.0163 (Pearson) -0.0894 (Spearman) *** Divisor Method with harmonic rounding (Dean) *** MT +1, UT +1 CA -1, NC -1 -0.1844 (Pearson) -0.2564 (Spearman) *** Divisor Method with truncation (Jefferson) *** CA +2, FL +1, IL +1, MI +1, NY +1, TX +1 HI -1, IA -1, MN -1, NB -1, NM -1, RI -1, WV -1 +0.3243 (Pearson) +0.4064 (Spearman) *** Divisor Method with ceiling (Adams) *** CT +1, DE +1, MS +1, MT +1, OK +1, OR +1, SD +1, UT +1 CA -3, FL -1, NY -1, NC -1, OH -1, TX -1 -0.3829 (Pearson) -0.6430 (Spearman) *** Largest Remainder with Hare Quota (Hamilton) *** UT +1 CA -1 -0.0721 (Pearson) -0.1482 (Spearman) *** Largest Remainder with Droop Quota *** For the 2000, produces the same apportionment as H-H or Webster. -0.0163 (Pearson) -0.0894 (Spearman) ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
