[EM] Part 1, More apportionment...

[Michael Ossipoff]

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