[EM] Advantages of the various proposals

[Michael Ossipoff]

As I said, I propose 4 methods:

Cycle-Webster (CW)
Adjusted-Rounding (AR)
Weighted-Webster (WW)
Webster (W)



Advantages of CW & AR over W & WW:

The equal s/q for all cycles, and the resulting low bias correlation in 
tests, of Webster and Weighted Webster  is of a statistical nature. But 
Cycle-Webster and Adjusted-Rounding deliver that advantage in every 
apportionment.

CW & AR are mathematically simpler than WW. Their completely transparent 
achievement of the goal of equal s/q for all cycles, resulting in equal 
representation expectation for all, can easily be explained and demonstrated 
to anyone.

Advantages of W & WW over AR & CW:

W & WW are true divisor methods, making them more traditional, and maybe  
more acceptable to people. It gives them the properties proven for divisor 
methods, if that’s considered important.

Advantages of Webster:

Webster  is the simplest of those 4 methods, and it has precedent in use. 
It’s one of the traditional divisor methods.

Though, without uniform frequency distribution, Webster will allow some bias 
correlation in tests, I claim that such a test result isn’t so unfair when 
it’s caused entirely by the distribution, as opposed to being caused by the 
method itself. Webster has no intrinsic bias.

Mike Ossipoff