[EM] Advantages of the various proposals

Michael Ossipoff mikeo2106 at msn.com
Thu Feb 1 06:55:12 PST 2007


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





More information about the Election-Methods mailing list