Chap4 Apportionment

Chapter 4
The Mathematics of
Apportionment
Ling Yeong Tyng
Faculty of Computer Science & Information Technology
University Malaysia Sarawak
Source: Peter Tanenbaum
4 The Mathematics of Apportionment

4.1 Apportionment Problems
4.2 Hamiltons Method and the Quota Rule
4.3 The Alabama and Other Paradoxes
4.4 Jeffersons Method
4.5 Adams Method
4.6 Websters Method
Copyright 2010 Pearson Education, Inc.
Excursions in Modern Mathematics, 7e: 4.1 - 2
Example 4.3 The Congress of Parador

Parador is a small republic located in Central
America and consists of six states: Azucar,
Bahia, Cafe, Diamante, Esmeralda, and
Felicidad (A, B, C, D, E, and F for short).
There are 250 seats in the Congress, which,
according to the laws of Parador, are to be
apportioned among the six states in
proportion to their respective populations.
What is the correct apportionment? Table
4-3 shows the population figures for the six
states according to the most recent census.
The first step we will take to tackle this

apportionment problem is to compute the
population to seats ratio, called the standard
divisor (SD). In the case of Parador, the
standard divisor is 12,500,000/250 = 50,000.
The standard divisor tells us that in Parador,
each seat in the Congress corresponds to
50,000 people.

We can now use this yardstick to find the
number of seats that each state should get by
the proportionality criterion all we have to do
is divide the states population by 50,000. For
example, take state A. If we divide the
population of A by the standard divisor, we
get 1,646,000/50,000 = 32.92. This number is
called the standard quota (sometimes also
known as the exactor fair quota) of state A.

Using the standard divisor SD = 50,000, we
can quickly find the standard quotas of each
of the other states.These are shown in Table
4-4 (rounded to two decimal places). Notice
that the sum of the standard quotas equals
250, the number of seats being apportioned.

Once we have computed the standard
quotas, we get to the heart of the
apportionment problem: How should we
round these quotas into whole numbers? At
first glance, this seems like a dumb question.
After all, we all learned in school how to
round decimals to whole numbersround
down if the fractional part is less than 0.5,
round up otherwise. This kind of rounding is
called rounding to the nearest integer, or
simply conventional rounding.

Unfortunately, conventional rounding will not
work in this example, and Table 4-5 shows
why notwe would end up giving out 251
seats in the Congress, and there are only 250
seats to give out!
Apportionment: Basic Concepts and

Terminology
The gold standard for apportionment
applications is the allocation of seats in a
legislature, and thus it is standard practice to
borrow the terminology of legislative
apportionment and apply it to apportionment
problems in general.

Terminology
The basic elements of every apportionment
problem are as follows:
The states
This is the term we will use to describe the
parties having a stake in the apportionment.
Unless they have specific names (Azucar,
Bahia, etc.), we will use A1, A2,, AN, to
denote the states.

Terminology
The seats
This term describes the set of M identical,
indivisible objects that are being divided
among the N states. For convenience, we will
assume that there are more seats than there
are states, thus ensuring that every state can
potentially get a seat. (This assumption does
not imply that every state must get a seat!)

Terminology
The populations
This is a set of N positive numbers (for
simplicity we will assume that they are whole
numbers) that are used as the basis for the
apportionment of the seats to the states. We
will use p1, p2,, pN, to denote the states
respective populations and P to denote the
total population P = p1 + p2 ++ pN).

Terminology
Two of the most important concepts of the
chapter are the standard divisor and the
standard quotas.
We can now formally define these concepts

using our new terminology and notation.

Terminology
The standard divisor(SD)
This is the ratio of population to seats. It
gives us a unit of measurement (SD people =
1 seat) for our apportionment calculations.

Terminology
The standard quotas
The standard quota of a state is the exact
fractional number of seats that the state
would get if fractional seats were allowed.
We will use the notation q1, q2,, qN to
denote the standard quotas of the respective
states. To find a states standard quota, we
divide the states population by the standard
divisor.

Terminology
Upper and lower quotas
The lower quota is the standard quota
rounded down, L.
the upper quota is the standard quota
rounded up, U.
For example, the standard quota q1 = 32.92
has lower quota L1 = 32 and upper quota U1
= 33.
Apportionment Methods
Our main goal in this chapter is to discover a

good apportionment methoda reliable
procedure that (1) will always produce a valid
apportionment (exactly M seats are
apportioned) and (2) will always produce a
fair apportionment. In this quest we will
discuss several different methods and find
out what is good and bad about each one.

4.2 Hamiltons Method and the Quota
Rule
4.5 Adams Method
4.6 Websters Method

HAMILTONS METHOD
Step 1 Calculate each states standard
quota.
Step 2 Give to each state its lower
quota.
Step 3 Give the surplus seats (one at a
time) to the states with the
largest residues (fractional
parts) until there are no more
surplus seats.
Example 4.4 Paradors Congress

(Hamiltons Method)
Hamiltons method (also known as Vintons

method or the method of largest remainders)
was used in the United States only between
1850 and 1900.
Hamiltons Method
Hamiltons method is still used today to
apportion the legislatures of Costa Rica,
Namibia, and Sweden.
At first glance, Hamiltons method appears to
be quite fair. It could be reasonably argued
that Hamiltons method has a major flaw in
the way it relies entirely on the size of the
residues without consideration of what those
residues represent as a percent of the states
population. In so doing, Hamiltons method
creates a systematic bias in favor of larger
states over smaller ones.
Hamiltons Method
This is bada good apportionment method
should be population neutral, meaning that it
should not be biased in favor of large states
over small ones or vice versa.
To be totally fair, Hamiltons method has two
important things going for it: (1) It is very easy
to understand, and (2) it satisfies an
extremely important requirement for fairness
called the quota rule.
QUOTA RULE
No state should be apportioned a
number of seats smaller than its lower
quota or larger than its upper quota.
(When a state is apportioned a number
smaller than its lower quota, we call it
a lower-quota violation; when a state
is apportioned a number larger than its
upper quota, we call it an upper-quota
violation.)

4.5 Adams Method
4.6 Websters Method
Jeffersons Method
Jeffersons method is based on an approach
very different from Hamiltons method. It is in
the handling of the surplus seats (Step 3) that
Hamiltons method runs into trouble. So here
is an interesting idea: Lets tweak things so
that when the quotas are rounded down,
there are no surplus seats! The answer is by
changing the divisor, which then changes the
quotas. The idea is that by using a smaller
divisor, we make the quotas bigger.
Lets work an example.

(Jeffersons Method)
Its nothing short of magical! And, of course,

you are wondering, where did that 49,500
come from? Lets call it a lucky guess for now.
Apportionment and Standard Divisor

Example 4.8 illustrates a key point:
Apportionments dont have to be based
exclusively on the standard divisor.
Jeffersons method is but one of a group of
apportionment methods based on the
principle that the standard yardstick 1 seat =
SD of people is not set in concrete and that, if
necessary, we can change to a different
yardstick: 1 seat = D people, where D is a
suitably chosen number.
Modified Divisor and Divisor Methods

The number D is called a divisor (sometimes
we use the term modified divisor), and
apportionment methods that use modified
divisors are called divisor methods. Different
divisor methods are based on different
philosophies of how the modified quotas
should be rounded to whole numbers, but
they all follow one script: When you are done
rounding the modified quotas, all M seats
have been apportioned (no more, and no
less). To be able to do this, you just need to
find a suitable divisor D.
JEFFERSONS METHOD
Step 1 Find a suitable divisor D.

Step 2 Using D as the divisor, compute
each states modified quota
(modified quota = state
population/D).
Step 3 Each state is apportioned its
modified lower quota.
Finding D
How does one find a suitable divisor D?

(Jeffersons Method)
The first guess should be a divisor somewhat
smaller than SD = 50,000. Start with D =
49,000. Using this divisor, we calculate the
quotas, round them down, and add. We get a
total of T = 252 seats. We overshot our target
by two seats! Refine our guess by choosing a
larger divisor D (the point is to make the
quotas smaller). A reasonable next guess
(halfway between 50,000 and 49,000) is
49,500. We go through the computation, and
it works!

4.5 Adamss Method
4.6 Websters Method
Adamss Method
Like Jeffersons method, Adamss method is
a divisor method, but instead of rounding the
quotas down, it rounds them up. For this to
work the modified quotas have to be made
smaller, and this requires the use of a divisor
D larger than the standard divisor SD.
ADAMSS METHOD

population/D).
Step 3 Each state is apportioned its
modified upper quota.

(Adamss Method)
By now you know the background story by
heart. The populations are shown once again
in the second row of Table 4-15. The
challenge, as is the case with any divisor
method, is to find a suitable divisor D. We
know that in Adamss method, the modified
divisor D will have to be bigger than the
standard divisor of 50,000. We start with the
guess D = 50,500. The total is T = 251, one
seat above our target of 250, so we need to
make the quotas just a tad smaller.

(Adamss Method)
Increase the divisor a little bit, try D = 50,700.

This divisor works! The apportionment under
Adamss method is shown in the last row.
Adamss Method and the Quota Rule

Example 4.9 highlights a serious weakness of
this methodit can produce lower-quota
violations! This is a different kind of violation,
but just as serious as the one in Example 4.8
state B got 1.72 fewer seats than what it
rightfully deserves! We can reasonably
conclude that Adamss method is no better
(or worse) than Jeffersons methodjust
different.

4.5 Adams Method
4.6 Websters Method
Websters Method
What is the obvious compromise between
rounding all the quotas down (Jeffersons
method) and rounding all the quotas up
(Adams method)? What about conventional
rounding (Round the quotas down when the
fractional part is less than 0.5 and up
otherwise.)?
Now that we know that we can use modified
divisors to manipulate the quotas, it is always
possible to find a suitable divisor that will
make conventional rounding work. This is the
idea behind Websters method.
WEBSTERS METHOD

population/D).
Step 3 Find the apportionment by
rounding each modified quota
the conventional way.

(Websters Method)
Our first decision is to make a guess at the
divisor D: Should it be more than the standard
divisor (50,000), or should it be less? Use the
standard quotas as a starting point. When we
round off the standard quotas to the nearest
integer, we get a total of 251 (row 4 of Table 416). This number is too high (just by one seat),
which tells us that we should try a divisor D a
tad larger than the standard divisor. We try
D = 50,100.

(Adams Method)
Row 5 shows the respective modified quotas,

and the last row shows these quotas rounded
to the nearest integer. Now we have a valid
apportionment! The last row shows the final
apportionment under Websters method.
Websters Method
Websters Method
When the standard divisor works as a
suitable divisor for Websters method, every
state gets an apportionment that is within 0.5
of its standard quota. This is as good an
apportionment as one can hope for. If the
standard divisor doesnt quite do the job,
there will be at least one state with an
apportionment that differs by more than 0.5
from its standard quota.
Websters Method
In general, Websters method tends to
produce apportionments that dont stray too
far from the standard quotas, although
occasional violations of the quota rule (both
lower- and upper-quota violations), but such
violations are rare in real-life apportionments.
are possible. Websters method has a lot
going for itit does not suffer from any
paradoxes, and it shows no bias between
small and large states.
Websters Method
Surprisingly, Websters method had a rather
short tenure in the U.S.House of
Representatives. It was used for the
apportionment of 1842, then replaced by
Hamiltons method, then reintroduced for the
apportionments of 1901, 1911, and 1931, and
then replaced again by the Huntington-Hill
method, the apportionment method we
currently use.

Chap4 Apportionment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chap4 Apportionment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 4

4 The Mathematics of Apportionment

Copyright 2010 Pearson Education, Inc.

Excursions in Modern Mathematics, 7e: 4.1 - 2

Example 4.3 The Congress of Parador

Excursions in Modern Mathematics, 7e: 4.1 - 3

Example 4.3 The Congress of Parador

The first step we will take to tackle this

Excursions in Modern Mathematics, 7e: 4.1 - 4

Example 4.3 The Congress of Parador

Copyright 2010 Pearson Education, Inc.

Excursions in Modern Mathematics, 7e: 4.1 - 5

Example 4.3 The Congress of Parador

Copyright 2010 Pearson Education, Inc.

Excursions in Modern Mathematics, 7e: 4.1 - 6

Example 4.3 The Congress of Parador

Excursions in Modern Mathematics, 7e: 4.1 - 7

Example 4.3 The Congress of Parador

Copyright 2010 Pearson Education, Inc.

Excursions in Modern Mathematics, 7e: 4.1 - 8

Apportionment: Basic Concepts and

Copyright 2010 Pearson Education, Inc.

Excursions in Modern Mathematics, 7e: 4.1 - 9

Apportionment: Basic Concepts and

Excursions in Modern Mathematics, 7e: 4.1 - 10

Apportionment: Basic Concepts and

Copyright 2010 Pearson Education, Inc.

Excursions in Modern Mathematics, 7e: 4.1 - 11

Apportionment: Basic Concepts and

Copyright 2010 Pearson Education, Inc.

Excursions in Modern Mathematics, 7e: 4.1 - 12

Apportionment: Basic Concepts and

We can now formally define these concepts

Copyright 2010 Pearson Education, Inc.

Excursions in Modern Mathematics, 7e: 4.1 - 13

Apportionment: Basic Concepts and

Copyright 2010 Pearson Education, Inc.

Excursions in Modern Mathematics, 7e: 4.1 - 14

Apportionment: Basic Concepts and

Copyright 2010 Pearson Education, Inc.

Excursions in Modern Mathematics, 7e: 4.1 - 15

Apportionment: Basic Concepts and

Excursions in Modern Mathematics, 7e: 4.1 - 16

Our main goal in this chapter is to discover a

Excursions in Modern Mathematics, 7e: 4.1 - 17

4 The Mathematics of Apportionment

4.6 Websters Method

Excursions in Modern Mathematics, 7e: 4.1 - 18

Excursions in Modern Mathematics, 7e: 4.1 - 19

Example 4.4 Paradors Congress

Hamiltons method (also known as Vintons

Excursions in Modern Mathematics, 7e: 4.1 - 20

Excursions in Modern Mathematics, 7e: 4.1 - 21

Copyright 2010 Pearson Education, Inc.

Excursions in Modern Mathematics, 7e: 4.1 - 22

Excursions in Modern Mathematics, 7e: 4.1 - 23

4 The Mathematics of Apportionment

Copyright 2010 Pearson Education, Inc.

Excursions in Modern Mathematics, 7e: 4.1 - 48

Excursions in Modern Mathematics, 7e: 4.1 - 49

Example 4.8 Paradors Congress

Its nothing short of magical! And, of course,

Excursions in Modern Mathematics, 7e: 4.1 - 51

Apportionment and Standard Divisor