[EM] Part 1, Warren Bias-Free reply
Michael Ossipoff
mikeo2106 at msn.com
Tue Jan 23 03:48:18 PST 2007
It's necessary to send this reply in parts, because of a comuter problem.
Warren says:
Mike Ossipoff in the thus-named post failed to provide any definition or any
theorem as usual
I reply:
Members: Note Warren’s flame-war-style angry tone. The same tone with which
he began his correspondence with me on this subject. Shall we take a vote on
what to do about him? If it isn’t a simple up/down vote, and has more than 2
alternatives, then I recommend BeatpathWinner. But we could use the
already-established Approval method to choose a voting system.
But, to answer his statement, actually I did provide a definition. Two
definitions of bias: The universally-accepted one, and a modification of it
that was intended to get rid of ambiguity.
Of course I’ve provided definitions of all four of my methods.
Theorem? I told why, by that popular definition of bias, my methods are
unbiased.. (Cycle Webster and Adjusted-Rounding are unconditionally
unbiased. Bias-Free is unbiased with a uniform frequency distribution.
Weighted Bias-Free is unbiased to the extent that its approximation of the
distribution is accurate).
It isn’t entirely clear what theorems Warren wants me to refer to or
provide.
Warren continues:
, while also failing to answer my question Warren says:
Mike Ossipoff in the thus-named post failed to provide any definition or any
theorem as usual
I reply:
Members: Note Warren’s flame-war-style angry tone. The same tone with which
he began his correspondence with me on this subject. Shall we take a vote on
what to do about him? If it isn’t a simple up/down vote, and has more than 2
alternatives, then I recommend BeatpathWinner. But we could use the
already-established Approval method to choose a voting system.
But, to answer his statement, actually I did provide a definition. Two
definitions of bias: The universally-accepted one, and a modification of it
that was intended to get rid of ambiguity.
Of course I’ve provided definitions of all four of my methods.
Theorem? I told why, by that popular definition of bias, my methods are
unbiased.. (Cycle Webster and Adjusted-Rounding are unconditionally
unbiased. Bias-Free is unbiased with a uniform frequency distribution.
Weighted Bias-Free is unbiased to the extent that its approximation of the
distribution is accurate).
It isn’t entirely clear what theorems Warren wants me to refer to or
provide.
Warren continues:
, while also failing to answer my question Warren says:
Mike Ossipoff in the thus-named post failed to provide any definition or any
theorem as usual
I reply:
Members: Note Warren’s flame-war-style angry tone. The same tone with which
he began his correspondence with me on this subject. Shall we take a vote on
what to do about him? If it isn’t a simple up/down vote, and has more than 2
alternatives, then I recommend BeatpathWinner. But we could use the
already-established Approval method to choose a voting system.
But, to answer his statement, actually I did provide a definition. Two
definitions of bias: The universally-accepted one, and a modification of it
that was intended to get rid of ambiguity.
Of course I’ve provided definitions of all four of my methods.
Theorem? I told why, by that popular definition of bias, my methods are
unbiased.. (Cycle Webster and Adjusted-Rounding are unconditionally
unbiased. Bias-Free is unbiased with a uniform frequency distribution.
Weighted Bias-Free is unbiased to the extent that its approximation of the
distribution is accurate).
It isn’t entirely clear what theorems Warren wants me to refer to or
provide.
to be continued
Mike Ossipoff
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list