[EM] Morally best: equal reprsentation expectation for all

[Michael Ossipoff]

Warren wrote:

I am highly dubious of both Ossipoff's "moral argument" and of my own.

I think really, any such arguments have to be backed up by some considerably
deeper
arguments about maximizing summed utility in some models,
and at their present level of development are little more than intuitive
ranting.

I reply:

But isn't equal representation expectation for everyone the obvious goal of 
apportionment?
The fact that something is intuitively obvious doesn't always mean that it's 
incorrect. Some things really are simple, clear, and obvious.

Warren, be sure that you aren't making something simple into something 
complicated.

Warren continued:

Ossipoff said of Olson's list:
>Of the standards that you listed, I prefer the one that minimizes the
>greatest under-representation.

--that standard leads exactly to Adam's method.

However... I do not think Ossipoff really thinks Adams is best!

I reply:

Immediately after the posting in which I said I liked minmax 
under-representation, I posted my retraction of that. I pointed out that 
that standard would preferentiallly round-up small states, over-representing 
small states. I said that I prefer the standard of equal representation 
expectation for all, and that I'm sticking with Webster, WW, CW, and AR, 
because they achieve that.

Mike Ossipoff