Anthony L.

Madrazo

APPORTIONMENT AND VOTING

Objectives
1. Define apportionment, and voting.
2. Apply different apportionment, and voting techniques in a real – world
problems.
Lesson Proper
Two of the most fundamental principles of democracy is the right to vote, and its
value. Voting is part of everyday life. We vote for government representatives, or
representatives that shall represent students’ body in school. We vote for our favorite
movies, food to eat, and where to go. Representative shall be allocated, or apportioned
or fairly divided relative to population.
The method of dividing a whole into various parts is
called apportionment. This mathematical analysis
originated in the US Constitution. It started in 1970
when the House of Representatives attempted to
apportion themselves. In the same year, the first
method suggested by Thomas Jefferson was adopted,
this known as the Jefferson Plan.
Thomas Jefferson, is the first secretary of state, vice
president, leader of the first political opposition party,
and third president of the United States. He played a
major role in the planning, design, and construction of
the national capitol and the federal district.
Alexander Hamilton, also suggested an
apportionment method called Hamilton’s Method,
which was approved by Congress in 1791.
Unfortunately, this was vetoed by President
Washington in the very first exercise of the veto power
of the President of the United States. His method was
adopted by US Congress in 1952, and used until 1911
which was replaced by Webster’s Method.

(Aufmann, et. al., 2013; El – Halalay, 2019)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Official_Presidential_portrait_of_Thomas_Jefferson_%28by_Rembrandt_Peale%2C_1800%29%28cropped%29.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Alexander_Hamilton_portrait_by_John_Trumbull_1806.jpg

Page 1 of 14
 Anthony L. Madrazo

Lesson 1. Apportionment
Apportionment is dividing whole into various parts. An example of this is the
apportionment of seats of the House of Representatives in United States every 10
years after census. State representation commensurate with the population size. For
us to understand the different apportionment methods. Let us consider this problem.
(Aufmann, et. al., 2013)

Example 1. Suppose Sorsogon State College created a new students’ organization for
the whole college. Assuming there are 30 seats available to be fill by
students’ representatives from, (1) Bulan Campus, (2) Castilla Campus,
(3) Magallanes Campus, and (4) Sorsogon City Campus. Assuming the
students population per department is as follows:
CAMPUS POPULATION
Bulan Campus (BC) 1,035
Castilla Campus (CC) 789
Magallanes Campus (MC) 804
Sorsogon City Campus (TD) 3,756
TOTAL 6,384
How many representative/s is/are allotted to each department? Use Hamilton Plan.
THE HAMILTON PLAN
The Hamilton Plan/ Method is introduced by Alexander Hamilton (c.1755 – 1804). In
this method the following steps should be done:
STEP 1. Compute for STANDARD DIVISOR (D). Standard divisor is the number of
citizens represented by each representative. It is the quotient of total
population and number of people to apportion.
𝒕𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝒑𝒐𝒑𝒖𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏
𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒂𝒓𝒅 𝒅𝒊𝒗𝒊𝒔𝒐𝒓 (𝑫) =
𝒏𝒖𝒎𝒃𝒆𝒓 𝒐𝒇 𝒑𝒆𝒐𝒑𝒍𝒆 𝒕𝒐 𝒂𝒑𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏
(Aufmann, et. al., 2013

From the example, the total population is 6,289, and the number of people to
apportion is 30 which the available seats for the representatives of the organization.
Hence:
𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑜𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝐷=
𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑒𝑜𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
6,384
𝐷=
30
6,384
𝐷=
30
𝑫 = 𝟐𝟏𝟐. 𝟖

Page 2 of 14
 Anthony L. Madrazo

The 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝑑𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑠𝑜𝑟 (𝐷) = 212.8 means that each of the 30 representatives is a
representative of more or less 212 students. Standard divisor must be rounded to at
least 2 decimal place (e.g. 209.63)
STEP 2. Divide the population size of each group (e.g. state, department) by the
standard divisor and round the quotient to lower quota whole number.
𝒑𝒐𝒑𝒖𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒔𝒊𝒛𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒆𝒂𝒄𝒉 𝒈𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒑
𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒂𝒓𝒅 𝑸𝒖𝒐𝒕𝒂 (𝑸) =
𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒂𝒓𝒅 𝒅𝒊𝒗𝒊𝒔𝒐𝒓
*Standard Quota is sometimes called Natural Quota.
CAMPUS Standard Quota
POPULATION Quotient
(L)
Bulan Campus (BC) 1035
1,035 ≈ 4.86 4
212.8
Castilla Campus (CC) 789
789 ≈ 3.71 3
212.8
Magallanes Campus (MC) 804
804 ≈ 3.79 3
212.8
Sorsogon City Campus (TD) 3756
3,756 ≈ 17.65 17
212.8
TOTAL 6,384 27
Based on the initial result of the Standard Quota (Q), the number in the Standard
Quota are the numbers of representative for each department. For instance, Sorsogon
City Campus will have the biggest number of representatives which 17, while both
Castilla Campus and Magallanes will have 3 representatives each which is the least,
and 4 for Bulan Campus. But it is given, that there are 30 seats for representatives for
the newly created students’ organization, while sum of the representatives in the
result is only 25.
STEP 3. Fill the missing number of representatives based on the quotient. Use the
decimal part of the quotient for additional representatives. The quotient
with highest decimal part will receive additional representative. Repeat the
process, compare again the remaining decimal part of the remaining groups.
The quotient of the remaining group with the higher decimal part will
receive the additional representatives. And, repeat the process until the
target number of representatives is filled.
Since we still need additional three (3) representatives, the following campuses will
respectively receive the additional representative: Bulan Campus, Magallanes and
Castilla Campus. These campuses have the highest decimal part (in quotient) among
others, which are 0.84, 0.79, and 0.71, respectively.

Page 3 of 14
 Anthony L. Madrazo

POPUL Standard No. of

CAMPUS Quotient Additional
ATION Quota (Q) Representatives
Bulan Campus (BC) 1035
1,035 ≈ 4.86 4 1 5
212.8
Castilla Campus (CC) 789
789 ≈ 3.71 3 1 4
212.8
Magallanes Campus 804
804 ≈ 3.79 3 1 4
(MC) 212.8
Sorsogon City Campus 3756
3,756 ≈ 17.65 17 0 17
(TD) 212.8
TOTAL 6,289 27 30
This implies that Sorsogon City Campus will be allotted with 17 seats for
representatives, which is the highest. Bulan Campus will be allotted 5 seats; and 4 for
both Castilla Campus, and Magallanes Campus.
JEFFERSON PLAN
The correct number of representatives is not always achieved by dividing the
population of each subgroup by the standard divisor and rounding off (lower quota)
the quotient in Hamilton Plan. For instance, in the previous example, the number of
representatives is short by three (3) representatives. Using the modified standard
divisor (Dm), Jefferson Plan try address this difficulty.
By trial and error, a number is selected which will be used to divide the population of
subgroups, so that the sum of rounded off standard quota ( lower quota) is equal to
the target number of representatives. If you try a number but you did not get the
target number of representatives, therefore you need to repeat the process by using
another number until you achieved the target number of representatives.
(Aufmann, et. al., 2013)

Use smaller number as modified standard divisor than the original standard divisor.
In case you try a lower number but the number of representatives exceeds the target
number, then try another number higher than the previous modified standard divisor
(Dm).
Let use the same example.
Example 2. Suppose Sorsogon State College created a new students’ organization for
the whole college. Assuming there are 30 seats available to be fill by
students’ representatives from, (1) Bulan Campus, (2) Castilla Campus,
(3) Magallanes Campus, and (4) Sorsogon City Campus. Assuming the
students population per department is as follows:
CAMPUS POPULATION
Bulan Campus (BC) 1,035
Castilla Campus (CC) 789
Magallanes Campus (MC) 804
Sorsogon City Campus (TD) 3,756
TOTAL 6,384
How many representative/s is/are allotted to each department? Use Jefferson Plan.

Page 4 of 14
 Anthony L. Madrazo

Solution. By using standard divisor (D) =212.8, the target number of representatives
is not achieved. Jefferson plan will use modified standard divisor.
Let Dm=205
CAMPUS Standard Quota
POPULATION Quotient
(L)
Bulan Campus (BC) 1035
1,035 ≈ 5.05 5
205
Castilla Campus (CC) 789
789 ≈ 3.84 3
205
Magallanes Campus (MC) 804
804 ≈ 3.92 3
205
Sorsogon City Campus (TD) 3756
3,756 ≈ 18.32 18
205
TOTAL 6,384 29

The target number of representatives is not achieved, it is still short by 1

representative. So, repeat the process, use another modified standard divisor (Dm).
So we will use smaller number, let Dm=195
CAMPUS POPULATION Quotient Standard Quota (L)
Bulan Campus (BC) 1035
1,035 ≈ 5.31 5
195
Castilla Campus (CC) 789
789 ≈ 4.05 4
195
Magallanes Campus (MC) 804
804 ≈ 4.12 4
195
Sorsogon City Campus (TD) 3756
3,756 ≈ 19.26 19
195
TOTAL 6,384 32

This time, the number of representatives exceeds by 2 than the target number of
representatives. Again, repeat the process. This time the modified standard divisor,
must be less 205 but greater than 195.
Now, let Dm=200
CAMPUS POPULATION Quotient Standard Quota (L)
Bulan Campus (BC) 1035
1,035 ≈ 5.18 5
200
Castilla Campus (CC) 789
789 ≈ 3.95 3
200
Magallanes Campus (MC) 804
804 ≈ 4.02 4
200
Sorsogon City Campus (TD) 3756
3,756 ≈ 18.78 18
200
TOTAL 6,384 30

Page 5 of 14
 Anthony L. Madrazo

By using Dm=200, the target number of representatives (30) is now achieved. Using
Jefferson Plan, Sorsogon City will be allotted with 18 seats which is the highest. Bulan
Campus will be allotted with 5 seats, 4 seats for Magallanes Campus, 3 seats for
Castilla Campus.
In comparison, the two methods resulted to different apportionment of
representatives most especially for Castilla and Sorsogon City Campuses.
CAMPUS POPULATION HAMILTON PLAN JEFFERSON PLAN
Bulan Campus (BC) 1,035 5 5
Castilla Campus (CC) 789 4 3
Magallanes Campus (MC) 804 4 4
Sorsogon City Campus (TD) 3,756 17 18
TOTAL 6,384 30 30

ADAM’S METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT

Almost the same as Jefferson’s method, except that it consider the upper quota of the
modified quota. Named after John Quincy Adam.
STEPS:
STEPS
𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑜𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
1. Find the standard divisor (𝐷) = 𝑛𝑜. 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
2. Pick a modified divisor (Dm ) that is slightly more than the standard divisor.
3. Divide each state’s population by the modified divisor to get the modified
quota.
4. Round each modified quota up to the upper quota.
5. Find the sum of the upper quotas.
6. If the sum is the same as the number of seats to be apportioned, you are done.
If the sum is too big, pick a new modified divisor that is larger than d. If the
sum is too small, pick a new modified divisor that is smaller than d. Repeat
steps three through six until the correct number of seats are apportioned.

Page 6 of 14
 Anthony L. Madrazo

WEBSTER’S METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT

Almost the same as Jefferson’s and Adam’s method, except that it consider the rules
for rounding off of the modified quota (round up or round down). Named after Daniel
Webster.
STEPS
𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑜𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
1. Find the standard divisor (𝐷) = 𝑛𝑜. 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛

2. Divide each state’s population by the modified divisor to get the modified
quota.
3. Round each modified quota to the nearest integer using conventional rounding
rules.
4. Find the sum of the rounded quotas.
5. If the sum is the same as the number of seats to be apportioned, you are done.
If the sum is too big, pick a new modified divisor that is larger than d. If the
sum is too small, pick a new modified divisor that is smaller than d. Repeat
steps two through five until the correct number of seats are apportioned.
APPORTIONMENT PARADOXES
Alabama Paradox – when the number of representative is increased, one city/ state
lose representative/s.
Population Paradox – exhibited when one city/ state increase its population faster
than the other state and still lose a representative.
New State Paradox – exhibited when state C’s population is accommodated for the
same number of representative but State A lost representative
and State B gained representative.
(Aufmann, et. al., 2013)

Example 2. Suppose 10 students will represent 1000 students from 3 year level. Use
Hamilton’s method to apportion. Use also Hamilton’s method to
apportion 1000 students to 11 representatives.
Year Level POPULATION
First Year 135
Second Year 333
Third Year 532
TOTAL 1,000

Page 7 of 14
 Anthony L. Madrazo

For 10 representatives
Standard Divisor (D) =1,000/10=100
Standard No. of
Year Level Population Quotient Additional
Quota (Q) Representatives
First Year 135 135/100=1.35 1 1 2
Second
333 333/100=3.33 3 0 3
Year
Third Year 532 532/100=5.32 5 0 5
TOTAL 1,000 9 10

For 11 representatives
Standard Divisor (D) =1,000/11=90.91
Standard No. of
Year Level Population Quotient Additional
Quota (Q) Representatives
First Year 135 135/90.91=1.48 1 0 1
Second
333 333/90.91=3.66 3 1 4
Year
Third Year 532 532/90.91=5.85 5 1 6
TOTAL 1,000 9 11

Summary of Apportionment for 10 and 11 Representatives

Hamilton’s method for 10 Hamilton’s method for 11
Year Level Population
representatives representatives
First Year 135 2 1
Second Year 333 3 4
Third Year 532 5 6
TOTAL 1,000 10 11

First year lost representative while other year level gain representatives, this called
Alabama Paradox. It has negative effect on fairness, apportionment should not exhibit
Alabama Paradox. In interest of fairness.
FAIRNESS IN APPORTIONMENT
Mathematicians are still working on apportionment that is fair. What is really the
definition of fair? This gives the conditions which will attempt to determine of which
apportionment plan is fairly judged.
Measure 1. Quota Rule. The number of representatives apportioned to a state is the
standard quota or one more than the standard quota.
(Aufmann, et. al., 2013)

Page 8 of 14
 Anthony L. Madrazo

For instance, the standard quota (Q) of Sorsogon City Campus is 17

3756
[𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝑄𝑢𝑜𝑡𝑎 (𝑄 ) = ≈ 17.65]. Hamilton method allocates 17 representatives
212.8
for which satisfy the standard quota. But, Jefferson method, allocates 18 to Sorsogon
City Campus which is 1 more than the standard quota. Since Jefferson method
allocates 1 more than Q, therefore, it violates Quota Rule.
Measure 2. Average Constituency. Population of the state divided by the number of
representatives from the state and then rounded to the nearest whole number.
𝑝𝑜𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑎 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 =
𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑠
Consider the example below.
State Population Representatives Average Constituency
9,500
State A 9,500 6 = 1,583
6
18,500
State B 18,500 12 = 1,552
12

Averages constituencies are approximately equal. Our assumption that both state are
equally represented.
Suppose, 1 representative will be added. Which state fairly deserves the new
representative?
State Population Average Constituency (Old) Average Constituency (New)
9,500 9,500
State A 9,500 = 1,583 = 1,357
6 7
18,500 18,500
State B 18,500 = 1,552 = 1,423
12 13
Possibilities
Possibility 1. If State A receives the additional representative, its new average
constituency is 1,357, while State B remains at 1552 average
constituency.
Possibility 2. If State B receives the additional representative, its new average
constituency is 1423, while State A remains at 1583 average
constituency.
Measure 3. Absolute Unfairness of an Apportionment. The absolute value of the
difference between the average constituency of State A and average
constituency of State B.
|𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝐴 − 𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝐵|
(Aufmann, et. al., 2013)

Page 9 of 14
 Anthony L. Madrazo

For possibility 1:
|𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝐴 − 𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝐵|
|1,357 − 1,552| = 195
For possibility 2:
|𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝐴 − 𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝐵|
|1,583 − 1,423| = 160
Result is summarized below.
State A’s average State B’s average Absolute unfairness
constituency constituency of apportionment
State A receives the
1357 1552 195
new representative.
State B receives the
1583 1423 160
new representative.

State B seem to receive the new receive the new representative because it has smaller
absolute unfairness of apportionment. However, this is not necessarily true.

To go further, let us consider the scenario below. Suppose you have two investments,
P20, 000.00 for investment A and P30, 000.00 for investment B. After 1 year, your
investments into P21, 000.00 and P31, 200.00, respectively.
Original After 1 year Increase
Investment A P20, 000.00 P21, 000.00 P1, 000.00
Investment B P30, 000.00 P31, 200.00 P1, 200.00

You might think, investment B is better since its increase is higher. But the increase
1,200 1,000
is only 30,000 = 0.04 𝑜𝑟 4%. Whereas, the increase in investment B is 20,000 =
0.05 𝑜𝑟 5%. These denote that for every P100, investment A has P5.00 increase and
investment B has 4% increase. Therefore, investment A is more productive.
This process is called relative unfairness. This process is also used when deciding
which state should receive the additional representative, rather than to look in the
absolute unfairness of apportionment.

Page 10 of 14
 Anthony L. Madrazo

Measure 4. Relative Unfairness of an Apportionment. This is the quotient of absolute

unfairness of apportionment and the average constituency of the state
receiving the new representative.
𝐴𝑏𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑒 𝑢𝑛𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑟𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑛𝑒𝑤 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒
(Aufmann, et. al., 2013)

Let’s go back to the previous example:

State A’s average State B’s average Absolute unfairness
constituency constituency of apportionment
State A receives the
1357 1552 195
new representative.
State B receives the
1583 1423 160
new representative.

195
𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑢𝑛𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑟𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝐴 = = 0.14
1357
160
𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑢𝑛𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑟𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝐵 = = 0.11
1423
Measure 5. Apportionment Principle. When adding a new representative to a state,
representative must be assigned to the state with the smaller relative
unfairness of apportionment.
(Aufmann, et. al., 2013)

Conclusion:
From this, State B should really receive the new representative because it has smaller
relative unfairness than State A. But, this not always the case. Always consider these
solutions.

Page 11 of 14
 Anthony L. Madrazo

HUNTINGTON – HILL APPORTIONMENT METHOD

 This also called the method of equal proportions. Used since 1940.
 Apportionment the representative every cycle. For instance, US House of
Representative apportioned among states every 10 years.
 Used to determine the Huntington – Hill number.

HUNTINGTON – HILL NUMBER

(𝑃𝐴 )2
𝐻𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑡𝑜𝑛 − 𝐻𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 =
𝑟(𝑟 + 1)
Where:
𝑃𝐴 – Population of state A
𝑟 – Current number of representative.
If Huntington – Hill Method is used to apportion representatives between or among
states, the state with greater Huntington – Hill number should receive the new
representative.
(Aufmann, et. al., 2013)

A school organization has 30 representatives, 5 from Bulan Campus, 4 from both

Castilla Campus and Magallanes Campus, and 17 from Sorsogon City Campus.
Suppose one (1) seat for representative is added to make 31 seats for representatives
of the organization. From which campus the new representative coming from? Use
Huntington – Hill Method.
CAMPUS POPULATION HAMILTON PLAN
Bulan Campus (BC) 1,035 5
Castilla Campus (CC) 789 4
Magallanes Campus (MC) 804 4
Sorsogon City Campus (TD) 3,756 17
TOTAL 6,384 30

(1,035)2
Bulan Campus: = 35,707.50
5(5+1)
(789)2
Castilla Campus: 4(4+1) = 31,126.05
(804)2
Magallanes Campus: 4(4+1) = 32,320.80
(3,756)2
Sorsogon City Campus: 17(17+1) = 46,103.06

Since Sorsogon City Campus has the greatest Huntington – Hill number which
46,103.06, therefore, the new representative is coming Sorsogon City Campus.

Page 12 of 14
 Anthony L. Madrazo

Although there are many apportionment methods, but all of these apportionment
methods have some flaws. There is no perfect apportionment method. This proven by
Michael Balinski and H. Peyton Young (1982). Webster method is most closely
satisfies the goal of a person, one vote. Sometimes, mathematical proof are overrule
by political appropriateness. Some historians believed that Huntington – Hill method
is better than the other.

EVALUATION
Answer the following. Use separate paper for your solutions and answers.
1. A certain school activity has six events with 245, 350, 300, 192, 274, and 414
participants, respectively. If 52 facilitators are to be apportioned based on the
number of participants. How many facilitators should each event have?
a. Hamilton plan
b. Jefferson plan
c. Adam’s method
d. Webster’s method
e. If another facilitator is added which makes it 53 facilitators, which event
deserve the additional facilitator?

2. Using Adam's method a certain option receives 20 representatives while using

Webster's method it receives 19 representatives, which fairness for
apportionment is violated.

3. State A has population 10,500 with 20 representatives and State B has a

population of 13,750 with 25 representatives. If one representative is added
which state deserves the additional representative using absolute unfairness
of an apportionment? Which state deserves the additional representative
using Hunting - Hill Apportionment Method?

4. In your own opinion briefly explain which among the apportionment method
the best is.

Page 13 of 14
 Anthony L. Madrazo

REFERENCES
El- Helalay, S. (2019). The Mathematics of Voting and Apportionment: An
Introduction. Springer Nature Switzerland, ISBN 978-3-030-147668,
Birkhauser, Gewerbestrasse, Switzerland. Retrieved 5 May 2020 from
https://b-ok.cc/book/5000753/178af4
Aufamann, R., Lockwood, J., Nation, R. & Clegg, D. (2008). Mathematical Excursions,
Third Edition. Cengage Learning, Belmont, CA, USA, ISBN-13: 978-1-111-
57849-7, ISBN-10: 1-111-57849-4
Mamije – Cruz, L. (2018). Apportionment and Voting. Retrieved 5 May 2020 from
https://www.slideshare.net/memijecruz/apportionment-and-
voting?qid=ad8007f1-a994-46d0-99b9-
b5e8e189425e&v=&b=&from_search=1
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Official_Presidential_port
rait_of_Thomas_Jefferson_%28by_Rembrandt_Peale%2C_1800%29%28crop
ped%29.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Alexander_Hamilton_por
trait_by_John_Trumbull_1806.jpg
https://www.coconino.edu/resources/files/pdfs/academics/arts-and-
sciences/MAT142/Chapter_9_Apportionment.pdf

Page 14 of 14