[EM] Minor corrections to Webster derivation

[Michael Ossipoff]

I said:

That can be shown as I described earlier. When I found out about my 
Bias-Free fallacy, I set out to find the intrinsically unbiased divisor 
method. Write expressions  for the total number of quotas possessed, and the 
total number of seats received, by the states in a some particular “cycle”, 
between two whole numbers of Hare quotas, such as the set of states 
possessing between 4 and 5 Hare quotas. Set those two expressions equal, and 
solve for the rounding point between those integers.

I now comment:

Put the word "expected" in front of "total number of quotas" and "total 
number of seats".

Take out the word "Hare", in both places where it occurs. The quota could be 
any quota. All that's necessary is that we're talking about q as a number 
between two integers. q represents a number of quotas.

Specify the assumption that the probability density of states with respect 
to q is assumed uniform within a cycle.

[end of modifications to derivation]

Modified wording:

That can be shown as I described earlier. When I found out about my 
Bias-Free fallacy, I set out to find the intrinsically unbiased divisor 
method. Assuming that the probability density of states with respect to q is 
uniform within a cycle, write expressions  for the expected total number of 
quotas possessed, and the expected total number of seats received, by the 
states in a some particular “cycle”, between two whole numbers of quotas, 
such as the set of states possessing between 4 and 5 quotas. Set those two 
expressions equal, and solve for the rounding point between those integers.

[end of modified wording]

By the way, the only way someone could criticize what I’m saying in that 
posting would be if he claimed that unbias and equal expectation are 
unachievable because represaentation expectation is affected by what part of 
a cycle a state is in. But I’ve already answered that: Yes, if we’re looking 
at the results of states being in different parts of their cycles, then 
there’d be no such thing as unbias or equal representation expectation. So 
we look at it only at the cycle level, and speak of unbias and equal 
representation expectation with respect to cycles. If you prefer, you could 
speak of it as a supposition that we don’t know what part of a cycle your 
state is in. Or we could speak of it as a comparison of the expected overall 
s/q of the various cycles--the expected overall  s/q of the cycles is equal 
with the methods that I propose.

Those methods achieve unbias and equal representation for everyone in the 
only sense, and in the only way, that it’s possible.

Milke Ossipoff