MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote: > > After testing Hill and Bias-Free in the 10-state example, it occurred to > me to also test Hamilton. Hamilton's allocation was about 2.8 times less > biased than that of Hill. Bias-Free had tested more than 3 times less > biased than Hill. > > I'd said that Bias-Free and Hamilton are the completely unbiased > methods. The probability that, by chance, Hill would finish last, just > as I'd predicted, is of course only 1/3. > > Though both are unbiased, one would expect Hamilton to probably do not > quite as well as Bias-Free, due to Hamilton's randomness. The > probability that, by chance, those 3 methods would finish in the > predicted order is only 1/6. > > Surely Balinski & Young must have done apportionments for all the > historical censuses, by Hamilton, Webster and Hill, and compared those > allocations for bias. Has anyone done such comparisons?
http://www.brook.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb88.htm ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
