Math and Politics HW #3

7.4
a. Where:
P- total cost = $10,000
H- number of pearls = 20
S- standard divisor = p/h = 10,000/20 = 500
Pk - contribution from each member
Alice: $1,250
Barbra: $3,650
Carolyn: $5,100

People Standard Quota = Lower Quota Hamiltons

Pk/S Apportionment

Alice 1,250/500 = 2.5 2 3

Barbra 3,650/500 = 7.3 7 7

Carolyn 5,100/500 = 10.2 10 10

For Hamilton’s method, pearls should be distributed with Alice getting 3, Barbra getting
7, and Carolyn getting 10. Barbra would gain a pearl because, with the lower quota only
19 out of the 20 pearls were distributed, and for Hamilton’s method, the remaining seats
or in this case pearls are assigned to people in decreasing order of the size of fraternal
parts of their standard quota, meaning Alice would receive the extra pearl and all 20
pearls would be assigned between the women.

b. Where:
P- total contribution = $10,000
H- number of pearls = 21
S- standard divisor = p/h = 10,000/21 = 476.19
Pk - contribution from each member
Alice: $1,250
Barbra: $3,650
Carolyn: $5,100

People Standard Quota = Lower Quota Hamiltons

Pk/S Apportionment

Alice 1,250/476.19 = 2.63 2 2

Barbra 3,650/476.19 = 7.67 7 8

 Carolyn 5,100/476.19 = 10 11
10.71

Finding the 21st pearl would result in both Carolyn and Barbra receiving an extra pearl
and Alice losing a pearl because as seen in the standard quota Carolyn is now the person
with the largest fraction after the original division than Barbra than finally Alice. This
would leave the apportionment as follows; Alice with 2 pearls, Barbra with 8 pearls, and
Carolyn with 11 pearls. Whereas when there were only 20 pearls Alice received 3, Barbra
received 7and Carolyn received 10. This is an example of the Alabama paradox because
even though a pearl was gained and there went from 21 to 22 pearls, Alice lost a pearl.

7.10
a. Where:
P- total population = 241,000+339,000+420,000 = 1,000,000
H- number of seats = 10
S- standard divisor = p/h = 1,000,000/10 = 100,000
Pk- population of each state =
State 1: 241,000
State 2: 339,000
State 3: 420,000

State Standard Quota = Lower Quota Hamiltons

Pk/S Apportionment

1 241,000/100,00 = 2 3
2.41

2 339,000/100,000 = 3 3
3.39

3 420,000/100,000 = 4 4
4.2

For Hamilton’s method, the result would be State 1 receiving 3 seats, State 2 receiving 3
seats, and State 3 receiving 4 seats. State 1 would gain the extra seat remaining from the
lower quota because they were the state with the largest fraternal part in their standard
quota.

b. Where:
P- total population = 241,000+339,000 = 580,000
H- number of seats = 6
 S- standard divisor = p/h = 580,000/6 = 96,666.67
Pk- population of each state =
State 1: 241,000
State 2: 339,000

State Standard Quota = Lower Quota Hamiltons

Pk/S Apportionment

1 241,000/96,666.67 2 2
= 2.49

2 339,000/96,666.67 3 4
= 3.51

Hamilton’s method would apportion these 6 seats by giving State 1 2 seats, and State 2 4
seats. State 2 would gain the extra seat remaining from the lower quota because they were
the state with the largest fraternal part in their standard quota. I noticed that the two states
are close together in size, but the larger state gains the extra seat even though it is only
larger by a small margin.
8.6
Where:
P- total population = 8,000+9,000+24,000+59,000= 100,000
H- number of seats = 10
S- standard divisor = p/h = 100,000/10= 10,000
Pk- population of each state =
State of Ambevilance: 8,000
State of Boredom: 9,000
State of Confusion: 24,000
State of Depression: 59,000

a.
Hamilton’s Method:

State Standard Quota = Lower Quota Hamiltons

Pk/S Apportionment

A 8,000/10,000 = 0.8 0 1

B 9,000/10,000 = 0.9 0 1

C 24,000/10,000 = 2.4 2 2
 D 59,000/10,000 = 5.9 5 6
For Hamilton’s method, as shown above, State A receives 1 seat, State B receives 1 seat, State C
receives 2 seats, and State D receives 6 seats. With the lower quota only 7 out of the 10 seats
were distributed, but are distributed so that States A, C, and D each get an extra seat because
they have the largest fractional parts in their standard quotas. This results in all 10 seats being
distributed among the 4 states.

b.
Jeffreson’s Method:
Where modified divisor (d) = 8,250

State Modified Quota = Pk/d Round Down

A 8,000/8,250 = 0.97 0

B 9,000/8,250 = 1.09 1

C 24,000/8,250 = 2.91 2

D 59,000/8,250 = 7.15 7

The apportionment determined by Jefferson’s method is shown above, with State A having 0
seats, State B having 1 seat, State C having 2 seats, and State D having 7 seats. Using the
modified divisor d=8,250.
c.
Adams’ Method:
Where modified divisor (d) = 11,900

State Modified Quota = Pk/d Round Up

A 8,000/11,900 = 0.67 1

B 9,000/11,900 = 0.75 1

C 24,000/11,900 = 2.01 3

D 59,000/11,900 = 4.96 5

The apportionment determined by Adam’s method is shown above, where State A receives 1
seat, State B receives 1 seat, State C receives 3 seats, and State D receives 5 seats. Using the
modified divisor d=11,900.
 d.
Webster’s Method:
Where modified divisor (d) = 10,100

State Modified Quota = Pk/d Round to the nearest whole

A 8,000/10,100 = 0.79 1

B 9,000/10,100 = 0.89 1

C 24,000/10,100 = 2.38 2

D 59,000/10,100 = 5.84 6

By Webster’s method, as shown above, State A receives 1 seat, State B receives 1 seat, State C
receives 2 seats, and State D receives 6 seats. Using the modified divisor d=10,100.

8.8
Hamilton:
State Population Standard Quota Lower Quota Aportionment

1 92.15 92.15 92 92

2 1.59 1.59 1 2

3 1.58 1.58 1 2

4 1.57 1.57 1 2

5 1.56 1.56 1 1

6 1.55 1.55 1 1
For Hamilton's method, each number is rounded down first to the lower quota. However, by
doing that it only adds up to 97, and so the remaining three seats are distributed to the states that
hah the largest fractional parts. Those being States 2,3, and 4 with fractional parts respectively of
.59, .58, and .57. Once the extra seats are distributed, all 100 seats have been distributed between
the 6 states.
Jefferson:
d=0.97
State Population Standard Quota Lower Quota Aportionment

1 92.15 95 95 95

2 1.59 1.64 1 1
 3 1.58 1.63 1 1

4 1.57 1.62 1 1

5 1.56 1.61 1 1

6 1.55 1.60 1 1
Since all seats were apportioned after the quotas, no extra seats were given

Adams:
d=1.03

State Population Standard Quota Lower Quota Aportionment

1 92.15 89.74 90 90

2 1.59 1.54 2 2

3 1.58 1.53 2 2

4 1.57 1.52 2 2

5 1.56 1.51 2 2

6 1.55 1.50 2 2
Since all seats were apportioned after the quotas, no extra seats were given.

Webster’s:
d=1.02

State Population Standard Quota Lower Quota Aportionment

1 92.15 90.34 90 90

2 1.59 1.56 2 2

3 1.58 1.55 2 2

4 1.57 1.54 2 2

5 1.56 1.53 2 2

6 1.55 1.52 2 2

Since all seats were apportioned after the quotas, no extra seats were given.
8.10
a. Where:
P- total population = 1,350,000 + 2,380,000 + 6,270,000 = 10,000,000
H- number of seats = 10
S- standard divisor = p/h = 10,000,000/10 = 1,000,000
Pk- population of each state =
State 1: 1,350,000
State 2: 2,380,000
State 3: 6,270,000

State Standard Quota = Pk/S Lower Quota Hamiltons

Apportionment

1 1,350,000/1,000,000 = 1 1
1.35

2 2,380,000/1,000,000 = 2 3
2.38

3 6,270,000/1,000,000 = 6 6
6.27

Hamilton’s apportionment with h=10 is as shown above, State 1 receives 1 seat, State 2
receives 3 seats, and State 3 receives 6 seats. The extra seat that remained after the lower
quota was distributed to State 2, Since .38 is greater than .35 and .27, for a total of 3
seats.

b. Where:
P- total population = 1,350,000 + 2,380,000 + 6,270,000 = 10,000,000
H- number of seats = 10
d- modified divisor = 1,000,000
Pk- population of each state =
State 1: 1,350,000
State 2: 2,380,000
State 3: 6,270,000

State Modifeid Quota = Pk/d Harmonic rounding Dean’s

Apportionment

1 1,350,000/1,000,000 = 1.35>1.33 2
 State Modifeid Quota = Pk/d Harmonic rounding Dean’s
Apportionment

1.35

2 2,380,000/1,000,000 = 2.38<2.4 2
2.38

3 6,270,000/1,000,000 = 6.27<6.46 6
6.27
Deans apportionment with h=10 is as shown above, with State 1 receiving 2 seats, State 2
receiving 2 seats, and State 3 receiving 6 seats. Since 1.35 is greater than 1.333, State 1 is
rounded up and gets a total of 2 seats.

c. Where:
P- total population = 1,350,000 + 2,380,000 + 6,270,000 = 10,000,000
H- number of seats = 10
d- modified divisor = 960,000
Pk- population of each state =
State 1: 1,350,000
State 2: 2,380,000
State 3: 6,270,000

State Modifeid Quota = Pk/d Round to the nearest whole

1 1,350,000/960,000 = 1.40 1

2 2,380,000/960,000 = 2.48 2

3 6,270,000/960,000 = 6.53 7
Webster's apportionment with h=10 is as shown above, with State 1 receiving 1 seat,
State 2 receiving 2 seats, and State 3 receiving 7 seats. Since 6.53 is greater than 6.5, state
3 is rounded up to 7 seats. A modified divisor of 960,000 was chosen, so that when the
modified quota of each state was rounded to the nearest whole number, and then they
were all added together, exactly 10 seats were distributed between the 3 states.