I've told why my methods are unbiased according to the popular meaning of bias. (BF's unbias depends on the distribution; Weighted BF's unbias depends on the accuracy of its distribution approximation). To disagree with those claims, tell why you disagree with that bias definition, and provide a substitute.
The free-seat requirement may have caused BF to look worse in the tests. The free seat makes the correlation result less meanngful, for judging methods' bias, and for judging the unproportionality of the seat allocations among the seat-qualified states. That's why no-free-seat correlation results should always be reported too. By the popular bias definition, bias should be empirically tested by correlation between the q and s/q of _cycles_, not individual states. That sounds radical, but it follows from the accepted bias definition. It sounds self-serving, coming from me, but I chose my methods because I wanted unbias by that definition. I don't know how much the difference between cycle-correlation and state-correlation could affect how good the methods look, but I suggest that test reports report cycle-correlation too. Mike Ossipoff ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
