[EM] "Weighted Webster", Apportionment, Moral rightness etc

[Warren Smith]

Hi.  I had indeed argued that my website's "alternative method 2"
seemed to be the "most morally right" of the methods derived there,
although the flagship method on that site (which is basically the same as Ossipoff's
new "weighted Webster"), was advocated despite seeming "less morally right"
due to its simplicity.

But I am not at all sure of my conclusions about moral rightness.
As I carefully said on the site, whose URL is
   http://rangevoting.org/NewAppo.html
"At the present moment it seems to me that alternative method #2 is the most 'morally right'
in terms of its underlying theoretical model/goals. However, that is merely my
subjective impression. Here is my reasoning..."

So don't take that too seriously.   Moral rightness is murky.

If it is really true (as Ossipoff now says) that this moral rightness conclusion
was based on a "fallacy," and the simplest method also happens to be the most morally
right, that'd be great - win-win scenario.  (I don't currently understand what Ossipoff's
moral reasoning is, though.)

One way Ossipoff could explain, is he could write an alternate writeup to my
webpage's section titled "Which one is the most 'morally right'?" which could be stuck
there in its place, or at least compared side by side.

...

But frankly, it seems to me that eggheaded reasoning about moral rightness is
not worth as much as computer simulations measuring how well the methods work in
reality (or simulated reality).   I would like to see more of those.

For example, my derivations are based on an exponential distribution.  Although
I have contended - and still contend - this is the best "simplistic probabilistic model"
for this purpose, the fact is that the real world does not correspond to any
oversimplistic model that well.  For example, the small states were intentionally
drawn so as not to have really ridiculously small populations, whereas the plain
exponential distribution permits that.  Hence the oversimplified
model is probably too big in the low tail.  Other historical accidents
also distort things.  That is why my web page suggested choosing the parameter d
to optimize historical performance - as opposed to getting d from a theoretical
oversimplified model of reality - actually get it from reality!

Although I must say Ossipoff has annoyed me considerably, I am glad to see that we
appear to be converging toward a common truth.  But I'm not yet fully satisfied
since I think there is still work to be done here before I feel fully comfortably
convinced.

Warren D Smith
http://rangevoting.org