[EM] Part 1, More apportionment...
Michael Ossipoff
mikeo2106 at msn.com
Fri Jan 19 02:32:04 PST 2007
This Part 1 apparently didn't post, so I'm re-sending it (and necessarily
re-writing it, since I didn't save it):
Warren said:
Ithe underlying theoretial attack is
exactly
that suggested by Mike Ossipoff for his "bias free Webster" method
I reply:
None of my 4 methods has that name. There are Bias-Free, Weighted Bias-Free,
Cycle-Webster, and Adjusted-Rounding.
Warren continues:
, except
that the underlying probabilistic model is now an exponential distribtuion
not a uniform "distribution"
I reply:
Ok, you're referring to Bias-Free, because it's the only one of my 4 methods
that makes that assumption.
Warren continues:
(I use the word in quotes since Ossipoff has in
various ways
ignored the requirements of probability theory, e.g. in his recent attack on
the
idea
that probability distributions need to be normalizable
I reply:
Calm down, Warrren--you know what people here say about flaming. Don't let
your emotions get you all confused, and make a fool of yourself again.
A probability distribution can take any shape. For example, someone could
write a program that would screen-print a number from a set of numbers, and
give it a probability distribution of any shape that you request. A roulette
wheel gives a uniform probability distribution for its chosen number, over
the range of 0 or 00 to 36.
B/(q+A) can roughly approximate the density of states over the population
range.
Mike Ossipoff
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list