--- "Brandon J. Van Every" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> I Googled randomly for something, and the title seemed
> reasonable.
>
> This kind of back-and-forth has convinced me that your list has no value
> whatsoever. I'm unsubscribing. I suggest you go to a moderated format
> and put a muzzl
This method is based on ranked ballots that (at least) allow truncation.
The candidate with the fewest truncations (i.e. the one that is ranked
on the greatest number of ballots) is designated c0.
Let c1 be the candidate (among those that cover c0) against which c0
scores the smallest oppositio
are now derived in the (updated)
http://rangevoting.org/NewAppo.html
interestingly, the Huntington-Hill method
is expressible as an exactly "unbiased" method in a model
exceedingly similar to Ossipoff's (see alternative method 3).
Warren D Smith
http://rangevoting.org
election-methods mailin
My "credentials" as a "professor" have been attacked.
I am not a professor and do not recall claiming to be one.
However in many ways I resemble a professor:
I do have a math PhD from Princeton, I have written and published a lot of math
papers,
I worked for various research places for a lot of ye
MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
> I'd like to comment one more time on the claim that Warren is a professor.
> Have you noticed who's been making all the errors and mis-statements? The
> professor's posting about Bias-Free consisted of nothing else. The professor
> also was unable to follow an explicit ins
Though Adjusted-Rounding is a little more work to count than my other
proposals, its other advantages make it the best apportionment proposal.
AR is closer to the other divisor methods than CW is. The method is applied
directly to the states. It differs from the other divisor methods only in
Warren said:
Now let us ask, what if we assume exponential not uniform distribution -
which has
the advantage of being self-similar, and with no high-cutoff necessary,
causing the formula we shall get to be valid everywhere - and ask for y so
that
integral(from A to y) (1-A/x)*exp(-K*x) dx
Warren said:
Hmm, oddly enough, this formula actually works despite my "proof" last post
based on
number theory that it could not. How can that be? Because the two rational
functions
in the two integrands are not the same, that is why (my sanity check had
assumed
they were the same!).
I rep
I'd like to comment one more time on the claim that Warren is a professor.
Have you noticed who's been making all the errors and mis-statements? The
professor's posting about Bias-Free consisted of nothing else. The professor
also was unable to follow an explicit instruction for a derivation us
Actually Bias-Free does not assume uniform probability density over the
entire range of populatiosn. It only assumes it within each cycle. Even if
the probability density varies drastically over the whole range of
populations, BF's assumption is good if the variation isn't too great within
ea
Warren says that "cycle" is not a good name for an interval between two
whole numbers of quotas. He hasn't said why. The function s(q) is a step
function. Looking at it, you might wonder why Warren objects to "cycle".
By making cycles' s/q as close as possible to 1, BF eliminates bias, as
de
Warren "proved" that Bias-Free couldn't be, and then admitted that he'd made
an error. He'd made a fool of himself, just as he did when he kept saying
that BF had to be "bogus" because the formula didn't look right toi him, and
because he couldn't derive it, even though the derivation had been
I prefer that an apportionment result have little or no correlation between
q and s/q. And CW & AR achieve that. (Well, AR might need a little
improvement, but it's potentially the best method).
BF is unbiased if the state-size frequency distribution is uniform. With the
existing distribuiton,
I don't have time to reply to Warren's long, rambling rants. So I I don't
reply to something Warren said, that doesn't mean that he's said something
irrefutable. It just means that I don't have the time. I will, however, be
kind and generous enough to comment on a few of his statements.
Warr
Warren said that I haven't defined bias. Well, I've repeatedly said that a
good starting definitioin of bias is that which, in PR, would give small
parties incentive to coalesce, or large parties incentive to split, in order
to maximize their s/q.
Someone with nothing better to do might quibble
15 matches
Mail list logo
