Here is what I mean by "bias". I claim that my meaning for bias is consistent with the usual understood meaning for bias::
For any two consecutive integers N and N+1, the interval between those two integers is "Interval N" If it is equally likely to find a party with its final quotient anywhere in interval N, then determine the expected s/v for parties in interval N. Compare that expected s/v for some small value of N, with the expected value of s/v for some large value of N. If the latter expected s/v is greater than the former, when using a certain seat allocation method, then that allocation method is large-biased. If the opposite is true, then the method is small-biased. If the expected s/v is equal for the two values of N, then the method is unbaised, under the assumption that a party is equally likely to be found anywhere within whichever interval that you're considering. That's what I mean by bias, under the above-stated assumption. What if that assumption isn't quite correct? Then Sainte-Lague is very slightly large-biased. Bias compares the expected s/v, in two intervals such as I described above. Mike Ossipoff
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
