[EM] Juho: Seat% and vote%--What I mean by "unattainable".

[Michael Ossipoff]

Juho:

{referring to making seat% as close as possible to vote%]

> I note again that I have not set any such target.

[endquote]

Excuse me, I thought you had, because you repeatedly spoke of that as a goal.

>> You said that you agree that people have a right to equal
>> representation for everyone (too the extent achievable).
>
> Not really

[endquote]

Ok, now that's progress. If you don't agree that people have a right
to equal representation, then that explains a lot.

You continued:

, but if we want to set equal representation as our ideal target, we
can approximate that with different seat allocation algorithms.

[endquote]

With some approximating it more approximately than others :-)

>
>>
>> Equal representation for everyone means equal representation for each
>> person. Equal representation for each person means an equal number of
>> seats for each person. An equal number of seats for each person means
>> equal s/q
>> (where q is a unit of population or vote).
>>
>> Therefore, you agree that people have a right to equal s/q, to the
>> extent achievable.
>>
>> If you disagree with one or more of the statements in the two
>> paragraphs before this one, then don't hesitate to say which
>> statement(s) you disagree with, and why.
>
> I think that was quite ok with the addition that we have set equal representation as our target

Sure, and if you';re saying that you don't consider that a right, then
all bets are off.

You said:

, and we are talking only about approximately equal representation.

[endquote]

With LR, we're talking about approximately equal representation. With
SL, we're talking about maximally equal representation.

You said:

I'm not sure if those paragraphs intended to say that SL or s/q or
seats per person is the only correct way to measure "to the extent
achievable".

[endquote]

What I said wasn't intended as a way to measure "to the extent
achievable". Those paragraphs didn't speak of how to measure "to the
extent achievable". Stick to one question at a time. Those paragraphs
were intended to say only what they estsblished. Maximally equal
representation for all means maximally equal s/q.

You speak of how to measure it. Putting everyone's s/q as close as
possible to that quantity's ideal equal value is a way. It's a good
feasible way. There are other ways you could do. For instance you
could minimize the maximum s/q pair difference. SL doesn't do that. So
far as I'm aware, that goal would require a trial-and-error procedure.
But what SL does is a pretty good substitute. Besides, by putting
_everyonn's_ s/q as close as possible to the ideal, you're doing
something for everyone.

By the way, I've found out that Webster is about 1.9% large-biased (in
U.S. apportionment). In general, it can be a few percent large-biased.

I don't know anything, really, about LR's bias. 1) Maybe it's unbiased
like Webster (up to a few percent of bias). 2) Maybe it's unbiased
like BF (completely unbiased if a uniform distribution is assumed).
3)Or maybe it's completely unbiased no matter what the distribution.

I doubt that it's #3, because the distribution's slope varies with q.
I don't know of a demonstration that it's #2. So it can only be
assumed that it's #1. But maybe it's #2. It could be either.

You certainly can't believe what you hear. Some say that Webster is
completely unbiased. Some say that Webster is small-biased. But
Webster is a few percent large-biased.
So what we hear doesn't tell us much about LR's bias. Not unless
someone shows why it's as they say.

If it can be shown that, for LR, it's #2, then LR is more unbiased
than SL, and that definitely would count for something.

Mike Ossipoff