[EM] Part 2, Bias-Free reply
MIKE OSSIPOFF
nkklrp at hotmail.com
Wed Jan 17 05:18:15 PST 2007
Warren said that I haven't defined bias. Well, I've repeatedly said that a
good starting definitioin of bias is that which, in PR, would give small
parties incentive to coalesce, or large parties incentive to split, in order
to maximize their s/q.
Someone with nothing better to do might quibble with "that which".
Warren claims he doesn't know what s and q mean, though those letters are
widely used in apportionment discussion to stand for seats and quotas.
I've said much else about bias too, about the sense in which it can be
gotten rid of. I don't have time to repeat all that for Warren.
Only a pretentious pompous ass would believe that I spoke of a uniform
frequency distribution over an infinite range of positive and negative state
populations.
Plainly I was refering to the distribution over the range in which
apportionment actually takes place.
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
Get live scores and news about your team: Add the Live.com Football Page
www.live.com/?addtemplate=football&icid=T001MSN30A0701
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list