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, when BF is used, the greater frequency of smaller states will mean that if you're in a small state, it's more lilkely than not to be in the lower part of a cycle. So BF will show a very little large-bias for that reason. Now, I don't say it's the state's fault that they're small states--even if they actively discourage people from moving there :-) And it's not their fault if the small states are more numerous than a uniform distrlibution would have it. But that isn't the method's fault either. So I suggest that maybe it's worthwhile to distinguish between method-cause bias and distribution-caused bias. Maybe the latter isn't as unfair. Maybe BF isn't doing anything wrong when s/q is affected by the distribution. Mike Ossipoff _________________________________________________________________ Get FREE Web site and company branded e-mail from Microsoft Office Live http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/ ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
