[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
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 
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 

Mike Ossipoff

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list