Robert-- I probably won't do test-simulations of Weighted-Ballot-Free, because, with such a method, unbias ( in the form of equal expected s/q, in every interval between two successive integers in q's range) is a certainty, assuming that the probability-density function, F(q), being used is accurate.
The real numerical work would be in finding the rounding-point, R, for WBF, in each interval. But, for the reason given in the first paragraph, there's no need to do that calculation unless WFB is actually in use. Well, ok, if WBF is being proposed and considered, then it might be of interest to tell people what a WFB allocation would look like, in comparison to those of BF, Webster, Hill, and the fixed-rounding-point methods based on average s/q in each interval, and also those based on expected s/q with some nonuniform probability-density function. If there's interest, and if someone is willing to deal with the probably-more-realistic log-normal distribution for the probability-density (or the more complicated one that Kristofer suggested), and program it, to do WFB apportionment for the 2010 census, then I'd participate in the discussion. Mike Ossipoff. ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
