Talk:United States congressional apportionment/Archive 1

Archive 1

The Equal Proportions Method

Does anyone else see how the so called "Equal Proportions Method" is totally unequal? Why not just divide by population and round to the nearest whole congressman?

Depends what you mean by equal. For a particular mathematical measure of inequality, it is the fairest method possible. Whether you agree with that definition of fairness is another question. On the other hand, there's a lot of issues with your method (see Alabama paradox). It's been tried and the consensus seems to be that EP is better. Jtwdog 06:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Could you please list these mathematical measures of inequality? Also, it's important to note that the Alabama paradox only occurred to the Hamilton method. It doesn't happen with the Webster method. Both methods are actually essentially equal with regards to their compliance with various paradoxes, along with the Jefferson method. The method that he listed is actually essentially a poorly stated form of the Webster method (or one way of calculating the Webster method): you take the quota (the number of seats in the house/the number of people in the country), divide the population of the state by this, and you round to the nearest whole number.

The statistically best measure of inequality is the standard deviation of the number of people per representative. The mean (average) representation is M = US-Population/Total-House-Seats. Equal representation would be accomplished if State-Population/State-House-Seats = M for every State. Since this cannot be accomplished with a reasonably sized Congress without having a fractional number of representatives, we measure the inequality with the standard deviation. Since the standard deviation uses the square root of the mean of the squares, the "Equal Proportions Method" does also.

A simpler (and possibly more proportional) method would be to initially assign each state

Round-Down( Total-Representatives x (State-Population/US-Population) )

representatives. Assign 1 representative to those states with 0 representatives and then use the "Equal Proportions Method" to assign the remaining representatives.

The limit of 435 House members is arbitrary and favors smaller states. Rounding up (and allowing the total number of seats to fluctuate) could achieve better representation (as measured by the Standard Deviation). The formula for each state would be

Round-Up( (Target-Seats - Number-of-States) * State-Population / US-Population ).

This would automatically ensure at least one seat per state and slightly reduce the small-state advantage in the House. A similar calculation would maintain the total number of seats:

1 + Round-Down( (Target-Seats - Number-of-States) * State-Population / US-Population )

Determining the "most representative" or "most equal" approach would be accomplished by applying each approach to each year that the representatives were adjusted since 1910. The approach with the lowest average standard deviation would be the most representative. Drbits (talk) 08:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The only difference is that, because such a method would not always produce 435 seats, you necessarily have to adjust the "quota" until rounding up or down produces the desired number 435 seats - an awkward feature of the system, but necessary for a fixed amount of seats. The Jefferson method works the same overall, except it rounds down, rather than rounding to the nearest (since a small state has more to lose with regards to proportionality by rounding down than a large state does, this naturally favors large states). There was a method called the Adams method (created by John Quincy Adams, not the first John Adams) that rounded up and, naturally enough, this favored small states. The Huntington-Hill method, also, can be computed using the method I described. With Huntington-Hill, however, you take the geometric mean of rounding up and rounding down, and round up if the fraction is greater than this and round down if it's less than this. As you may be able to see, the Webster method of rounding can be stated in much the same way, except with the arithmetic rather than geometric mean, but this is the procedure we commonly refer to as "rounding to the nearest". Since the geometric mean is always smaller than the arithmetic mean, naturally enough, this method is slightly more favorable to small states than the Webster method. There's no way to state what the Huntington-Hill method does without sounding awkward, since this method of rounding is essentially never used. I really think that the people involved just didn't understand any of them and picked the one that sounded the most complicated. Huntington-Hill does minimize the variance in size of congressional districts, that is, given a number of states k, Huntington-Hill will minimize ∑k Pk(Sk/Pk-S/P)^2, where P is the population of the country, S is the number of seats, and Pk and Sk are the same for the individual state involved. However, Webster minimizes the variance in seat-share amongst individual people, or ∑k Sk(Pk/Sk-P/S)^2 for k states - so actual individuals have a more equal share in congress under the Webster method than the Huntington-Hill method.

The form of computing these various methods listed above, of course, sounds different than the one in the article. The one in the article is essentially the same as the method Europeans came up with to apportion seats to parties in countries with proportional representation, while the one I listed is the "classical" one devised by Jefferson when he first created his method. However, the two different ways of computing have the same results.

These methods are all part of a group of methods called the "highest averages method" which are all relatively the same with regards to various apportionment paradoxes. The only difference is, again, the method of averaging, with some favoring smaller or larger states. The Hamilton method is part of a different group of methods, called the largest remainder methods, and they are pretty infamous for their susceptibility to paradoxes (however, it at least can be said of the Hamilton method that it's equitable with regards to the distribution of seats, unlike the Jefferson method). It's disingenuous to attack the Webster method by claiming that it falls afoul of these paradoxes, when, in reality, it's no more susceptible than Huntington-Hill.65.0.171.11 (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

All methods will have paradoxes though. EP was created to prevent the big states from bullying the small states, but now the situation is reversed and EP helps the small states bully the big states. However, at least if the big states ruled, the power would be in the hands of the big populations. Under EP, it's minority rule. If you live in Wyoming, you have 4 times as much voting power than if you live in California or New York. Both the Senate and House of Representatives favor the voters in the small states. The presidential election is then based on the number of seats each state has in these houses. How is this fair?

The method of Hill (rounding based on geometric mean as opposed to arithmetic mean) was adopted because it minimized the difference in voting power between citizens of the states (it minimized the differences of electoral district sizes) and because it seemed less prone to the paradoxes that came with rounding based on arithmetic mean. The objective was to minimize the divergence from fair representation at the people level as opposed to the state level. The states are not to be represented. The people are. I get all but the last 2 sentences from "Fair Representation, Meeting the Ideal of One Man One Vote", Michael L. Balinski and H. Peyton Young.--The Trucker (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is not congressional apportionment methods, but the Senate. The changes from different Congressional apportionment methods would be pretty small in the grand scheme of things. Wyoming is alway going to have a representative (it's in the Constitution), which will give its citizens way more voting power than those in California. It's giving it two Senators that's highway robbery.

The problem is resolved by increasing the number of seats in the House of Representatives. There is no substitute for this increase that lies within the current constitution, and any proposed amendment to the constitution will be blocked by the red states. The small states currently derive their power from the Senate and from the "Senatorial Edge" that they enjoy in the electoral college. They will not accept any amendment to the constitution that would dilute that power. It takes 2/3rds of the membership of both Houses of Congress to propose and amendment and 3/4ths of the states to ratify. The red states and the Republicans will not allow it.--The Trucker (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

But the fact that Senators vote according to their party and ideology, rather than by state, renders that somewhat unimportant. Wyoming gets 2 Republicans, but then Hawaii gets 2 Democrats. As for apportionment for the House, there is no general agreement on what is more or less proportional. Which method is better than another will depend on ones ideas of proportionality. All methods will produce a perfectly proportional results when such a result is possible - but in reality it generally isn't. - Matthew238 07:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Voting according to idiotology is not how the United States was intend to work, but there is little that can be done about the travesty of the "Connecticut Compromise" that destroyed proportional representation in the Senate. And the only Constitutional way to improve the situation is to increase the membership of the House. Such an increase would have the members of the House putting a lot more electoral effort into selecting the Senators.--The Trucker (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem started with amending the constitution in June of 1804 "...when in every case, after the choice of the president, the person having the greatest number of votes shall be the vice president..." was amended to "...vote by ballot for president and vice president." Defending the constitution gave way to unprincipled partisan politics.

Orininally, "The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand," It seemed possible for (1) representative to confer with such a large constituency. Modern technology has made this task easier, but the task has exponentially exploded. US population is approaching three hundred million. Number of Reps: 435. Is it humanly possible, using modern technology, for (1) representative to confer with a constituency of half a million people of diverse economic backrounds?

Cognitive consent is prerequisite to culturally identify as democratic. Therefore, we the people must be vigilant because, robbing, ripping off, scamming, cheating, taxing and lying are not blessings of liberty, but cultural liability.

The bottom line remains the same: We must increase the membership of the House so as to reduce the size of the congressional districts. Smaller districts are much more "representative" of the common people of the districts. This is an act of simple legislation and it was intended to be an act of simple legislation. The Reapportionment Act of 1929 was a law like any other and it can be changed at the will of the Congress. 2009 and 2010 are a very good time to address this issue. Let the discussion begin.--The Trucker (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Utah & DC changes

A bill has passed a house committee to add 2 seats to the House or Representatives.[1]. One seat would go to Wash DC, giving it a full voting House member. The other seat would be available as a normal congessional seat, and currently would go to Utah. This would increase the total number of seats to 437. I think this should be added to the article, but I'll someone more familiar with the article to add it.

The portion of the bill giving DC a vote in the house could be subject to the New States Paradox. In fact, there ought to be somewhere a study on weather or not if DC had been a state in 2000 (or part of Maryland in 2000 as well) if it would have affected the priority list in a paradoxial way. Jon 20:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There is also the fact that since Washington D.C. is not a state, and the Constitution only allows representation to States (and this was deliberate), any law presuming to give Washington D.C. a representative would be unconstitutional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:2200:9900:D0C4:E9CF:AC37:81DA (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• The bill is the DC Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act of 2006—Markles 17:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Forgetting DC for the moment, by my calculations (which could be wrong), if we added six new representatives, the formula discussed in this article would give them to NY, IN, MI, TX, IL, and UT. I think this clarifies something about Utah's claim for an additional representative. 68.89.149.2 15:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• I forgot to mention that I've listed the states in the order in which new representatives would be apportioned: If we added a 436th, it would go to NY. So, Utah is sixth on the list for getting an additional representative. 68.89.149.2 15:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• • That's not correct. With the EP formula and the 2000 census, the next 6 states that would receive a rep are Utah, New York, Texas, Indiana, Montana, Illinois, in that order. Schoop 20:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

History

Perhaps some history of the other methods used. A discussion of the pros and cons of various methods. Mention of proportional representation and the allocation of seats to parties - basically the very same problem. Just some ideas for article expansion.

Definition of "population"

Does anybody know what definition of population is used for the calculations? Is it total resident population, population of citizens, voting-eligible population, registered voters, something else? I'm pretty sure it's not registered voters, but I don't know how children, documented and undocumented aliens, prisoners, and other potentially ineligible groups are treated. Part of the reason that I'm wondering is that, according to this site, http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2004.htm, the fraction of voting-age residents who are eligible to vote varies from 79% in California up to 99% in Maine, North Dakota, Montana, and West Virginia, so the apportionment answer is likely to depend on the choice of definition. I also suspect that the period over which the population is measured matters, since some areas, such as Florida, have meaningfully large seasonal population changes.--Rkstafford 19:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is just population, plain and simple (minus untaxed Indians - see the Constitution). Apportionment does depend heavily on choice of defininition. Going from smallest to largest, we could use: Those voting, those registered to vote, those eligible to vote, population as a whole. The last (I think - certainly not any of the others), is what is used in the United States. Other countries with Single Member districts can use other criteria. In any event, population is never equal anyway; even going by Census figures to the exact individual and address, the Census is not perfectly accurate, and the very day after the Census is taken, population movements, births, deaths etc. will change the figures. Not to mention, as you did above, the variance in the number of people who actually vote, are allowed to vote, etc. - Matthew238 21:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

One of the Reconstruction Amendments reduces the representation in proportion to the number of adult male citizens who are deprived of the right to vote; I don't remember offhand whether it mentions convicts. —Tamfang 00:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Colors on the Map

The colors on the map are really confusing. It is hard to tell +1 and -1 apart. Rdore 07:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Table Ratio of representation in the House

Does anyone have data to complete this table through the most recent census? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaedglass (talk • contribs) 00:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into United States congressional apportionment. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

---

They are all about the same thing, so why not? :) Foofighter20x (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support. No point in having "Size of the United States House of Representatives".—Markles 11:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Agree with Markles.--Appraiser (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I had know idea there were three articles discussing this.Dcmacnut (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

3?--Appraiser (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. The number of members in the House is a separate issue from how those members should be apportioned. Ron Duvall (talk) 07:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm no fan of stub-length articles, and a page soley about the size of the House would most likely be a stub. And I disagree. House size is immensely important to apportionment, as it determines how many seats there are to be apportioned. What if the size of the House was set by law to only 50 seats, eh? Then we'd have another Senate, essentially... And constitutionally, it could happen!! Foofighter20x (talk) 04:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Yes, the issues presented in "Size of the United States House of Representatives" do merit separate space, but much of the information on this page could easily be rewritten into at most two sections on the "United States congressional apportionment" page. I recommend that we don't keep the list, but rather condense it into a small paragraph detailing various law changes to the size. Collegebookworm (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support. The two topics are intimately connected and the reader would benefit from the merger.Tglacour (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Let's do this!!

I have a goal. I'd like if we all put in an effort to get this page squared away with the page merge and history in order to achieve featured article status by April 2010, when the census takes place. Who's with me? :) Foofighter20x (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

To give an idea of what I'm thinking with the merger and a rewrite:

Intro...

• Constitutional text
  • Art. I, Sec. 2, Cl. 3
  • Fourteenth Amd., Sec. 2
• House size
  • Federalist 55
  • Public Law 62-5
• Apportionment
  • When done, why, and who's counted
  • Current distribution method - Huntingdon-Hill Method (Method of Equal Proportions) 1940-present; uses geometric mean
  • Former methods
    • Jefferson's Method (Method of Greatest Divisors; biased to large states) 1790-1830
    • Webster's Method (Method of Major Fractions) 1840, 1910, 1930
    • Hamilton's Method (Method of Largest Remainder) 1850-1900; a.k.a. Vinton's Method
  • Proposed methods not used
    • Adam's Method (Method of Smallest Divisors; biased to small states); proposed by John Quincy Adams
    • Dean's Method (Method of Harmonic Mean); proposed James Dean (Professor of Mathematics at the University of Vermont, not the actor); resurfaced in federal courts in 1991 (United States Department of Commerce v. Montana, 503 U.S. 442 (1992))
    • Smallest State Method (Wyoming Rule); set ideal district size at population of smallest states, delimits house size; I have no clue where this first popped up... Help me out! :)
• Controversies
  • Methodology challenges
    • No statistical sampling (Commerce Dept. v. U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316 (1999))
    • Imputation (Utah v. Evans, 536 U.S. 452 (2002))
  • Demographic challenges and gerrymandering
    • One man, one vote
    • Majority-minority districts
• Projected changes following the 2010 census
• Past increases in House size
• Past delegation sizes
• References
• Notes
• See also
• External links

What'cha guys think? Foofighter20x (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. Go for it. Be Bold!—Markles 14:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Sounds like a lot of work, but if you'll do it or motivate others to do so, feel free...Collegebookworm (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Looks fine to me. The article definitely needs sprucing up. You've probably seen it, but a good source is the CRS Report The House Apportionment Formula in Theory and Practice. Could help expand or explain the equal proportions method.DCmacnut<> 02:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wyoming Rule is not an "apportionment method" in the sense of the others, but a method of setting the number of representatives to a more rational and less "malapportionment" prone number. There are much more scientifically supportable and rational ways to improve the determination of House size. There is NO science or rationale supporting a fixed size of 435. I have done some "original research" in regard to the matter and I feel very strongly that some derivative of "cube root" would produce a much better Guideline for House size from the standpoint of proper apportionment and improvement toward "one man one vote" without over-expansion of the House. Remember please that actual apportionment is a law guided by a constitutional statement. The insinuation of "cube root" is more a long term solution suitable for constitutionalization than a suggested reapportionment law. The size of the House can be changed and was intended to be changed as the population increased. I am suggesting that the cube root of the population would make a better lower bond and guide for House size than the current stupidity.--The Trucker (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"over-representation"

What is the criterion for describing the four smallest states as "over-represented"? Why aren't half the states over-represented? —Tamfang (talk) 05:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. This table shows it well. Sort by "Population per House seat". Of the four, only Wyoming is in the top four of "over-represented" populations.--Appraiser (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed the table, which was copied from List of U.S. states by population#States and territories; no need for it on this talk page. —Tamfang (talk) 10:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

1923

It seems that there is an interesting story to be told about 1923, what is it? I refer to the line No apportionment enacted. Distribution of seats from 1913 unconstitutionally remained in effect. --KarlFrei (talk) 08:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Congress never passed a reapportionment bill after the 1920 census. 1920 was the first census in which the urban population exceed rural population, which apparently led to claims of rural undercount and questions about the existing apportionment formula. Also, there was growing sentiment to freeze the size of the House of Representatives, turning the process into a zero-sum game and raising the political stakes. I believe (no cite at hand) that Congress eventually punted to the Supreme Court, which threw the whole thing out. They settled the 1930 census in advance and permanently fixed the size of the House at 435. Rklear (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This needs to be stated with citations. Otherwise, someone should take out the statement about unconstitutionality.—Markles 15:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The constitution says nothing about how seats should be apportioned, only stating that a census must be conducted very 10 years and that "Represenatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers" (14th Amendment). Congress is in charge of determining how apportionment should be conducted based on the decennial census. So I think it's a bit of a stretch to say not passing an apportionment law is "unconstitutional" barring any Supreme Court ruling to that effect. The courts traditionally took a view that apportionment issues were not subject to judicial review until the state legislature and malportionment cases of the 1960s, such as Reynolds v. Sims. I've removed "unconstitutional" until a definitive cite can be provided.DCmacnut<> 17:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Next contestant, please... The apportionment of seats in the House of representatives is to be according to the population determined by the decennial census. A failure to attempt to take such action is a breach of the Constitution. More, the Supremes did rule in Baker_v_Carr that one man's vote should count as much as another's and thus the failure to reapportion was FOUND to be unconstitutional. The Reapportionment Act of 1929 was also FOUND to be unconstitutional by the same line of court decisions because the 1929 act made no stipulations as to equally populous contiguous single member districts. The tardiness of the ruling does not change the unconstitutionality of the actions of the Republican party in the 1920's.--The Trucker (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm paraphrasing this: Congress ignored their constitutional duty to reapportion the House seats.

• Corwin, Edward S. (1978), Chase, Harold W.; Ducat, Craig R. (eds.), The Constitution and What It Means Today (14th ed.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, p. 11

Looks like my characterization of the 1913 apportionment having unconstitutionally remained in effect was apropos. Foofighter20x (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The Constitution does not require that Congress reapportion every 10 years, only that any reapportionment be based on an "actual enumeration" of the people.

What a stupendously ridiculous claim!!!--The Trucker (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Something is only "unconstitutional" if the Supreme Court rules it as such, even if on the face of it it may be perceived to be unconstitutional.

Followed by yet another....--The Trucker (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with your assessment, but I don't think we can include that statement in the article barring such a court ruling.

The court "ruled" in Baker v. Carr that malapportionment is unconstitutional. It was unconstitutional in the 1920's and it is still unconstitutional now.--The Trucker (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The lack of reapportionment in this instance an historical anachronism. The controversy and legal issues surrounding it are more nuanced and needs more detail and sourcing, perhaps in its own section in this article, rather than through one simple statement in a table.DCmacnut<> 03:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The lack of reapportionment in 1923 was totally political and it was done to protect the Republicans that had just taken over the government. If reapportionment had occurred in the traditional fashion the Republicans would have lost the majority in the House. See Reapportionment Act of 1929#Historical_Context.--The Trucker (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

My point is in the language of the Constitution. It says Representatives shall be apportioned. That's is an imperative; an instruction which must be followed. If Congress failed to follow it, then they committed an unconstituional act. Again, nothing to ruffle feathers over; I agree with the table maybe not being the best place to mention it. Just supporting my point is all. Foofighter20x (talk) 03:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh but it is something to "ruffle the feathers".--The Trucker (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Something is only "unconstitutional" if the Supreme Court rules it as such — that's nonsense. Such a ruling is not what makes it unconstitutional. The court has said more than once that nothing can be inferred from its declining to hear a case. When it does consider an issue, it may be infallible de jure, but the rest of us are free to say that de facto it is mistaken or corrupt. —Tamfang (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I may have misspoke, but the general point I was trying to make is that we need reliable sources making the unconstitutional argument, not just through inferrence. As it stands, we have no sources in the article saying unequivicolly that the lack of apportionment was "unconstitutional."DCmacnut<> 17:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Try Baker v. Carr

First, Baker was not a decision about Congress's duty to apportion. Rather, it was an equal protection case, which means it applies to the states. Even if it had applied to Congress, it is silly to say something was unconstitutional based on a decision that came down twenty years later, especially a decision based on an understanding of the equal protection clause was different from the 1920s understanding. Trying to shoehorn Baker v. Carr or a reapportionment act from years after the failure to apportion into a justification for the "unconstitutional" label is just WP:Synth

Second, it should be established that there is no apportionment formula that could have justified retaining the old apportionment. It is probable that there in fact was no such formula, but we need references. Since we have no court opinion actually on point, any suggestion of unconstitutionality must come from a reliable source. I don't see why people are taking such umbrage at having to adhere to such a basic policy. -Rrius (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, fine. You can have your point regarding Baker v. Carr because I don't need it to say that the failure to reapportion was unconstitutional. The Constitution instructs the Congress to reapportion based on the census such that the seats in the House of Representatives are properly apportioned among the states and as much as possible the people of the states. That is constitutionality. The legislature does not have prerogative. Failure to reapportion is unconstitutional just as water is wet. I would be willing to bet that the Supreme Court Justice that did not agree with my statement on this matter would be impeached and dismissed for a criminal act against the Constitution itself (i.e. against America). This may just be my POV but it is obviously very much superior to your POV. Perhaps you'd like a "source" for two plus two equals four?--The Trucker (talk) 08:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't even know my point of view, so don't bother. If you had actually read what I wrote, you would have picked up on the fact that you are missing a step in your analysis. If, after the census, the number of seats to which each state would be entitled is the same, there is no need to reapportion. Since there are multiple formulas that have been used to apportion seats (which can yield different results), you have to cite a reliable source saying that no matter the formula used, some state or states would have gained at the expense of others. Under Wikipedia guidelines (WP:Synth), it is dodgy enough to connect Fact A with Fact B to form Conclusion C, but you are not even admitting that you have to back up Fact B (that Congress's failure to act was unjustified). The assertion is far from manifest, and therefore must be verified with a reliable source. -Rrius (talk) 05:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if we go through this real slow then your little light bulb will go on. The Constitutions says that there will be a reapportionment following the census. It does not say that if the Congress doesn't like the numbers or if the numbers are the same then the Congress can forgo its responsibility to create an apportionment law that defines the apportionment. The districting language of the 1911 law was in effect in 1921 and unless Congress created a new apportionment law to change it then Congress was guilty of violating then current law as well as the Constitution. And again we come to the fact that major population shifts would have redistricted many of the Republicans out of their seats and what they did was unconstitutional. I referenced Reapportionment Act of 1929 and that page references Balinski and Young concerning the reasons for the refusal to reapportion AND the fact that major population shifts took place. That page also points to Baker v. Carr and says that when the Supremes finally heard the case they determined that the 1929 act was unconstitutional because it PURPOSEFULLY allowed the states to elect congressional representatives at large and did not insist on equally populous districts (one man one vote). Without legislation it is difficult to enforce the law. It took 40 years to get to the Supremes but the Reapportionment Act of 1929 was unconstitutional when it was hatched. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikcob (talk • contribs) 23:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

One more time. The Constitution does not say that the Congress has to reallocate seats if there is no need to reallocate seats. That's what a reapportionment is. In the event the numbers are the same from one decade to the next, inaction is the same as action. Once more, you need to find sources instead of questioning the intelligence of those disputing your original research. If you continue down this path, you will show yourself to be a troll who can simply be ignored. Reapportionment Act of 1929 is not a proper citation. If that page contains an appropriate source, as you suggest, cite it here and be done with it. Instead of being defensive and abusive, you could have cleared this all up ages ago by doing what was asked and citing the source. In the future, I would advise you, when you have a citation, to respond to requests for a citation by providing it rather than saying, "I'm right, and you're stupid", which is, in effect, what you have been doing here. -Rrius (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Both of you knuckleheads: stop, please. Rrius is correct about needing a cite for such a declaration; however, Rrius, there's no need to believe he's edited in bad faith. If I wasn't in circuit court this whole term, then I'd get you the specific page from Balinski and Young as cited in the article which specifically makes the descriptive and evaluative characterization of the lack of a 1923 apportionment as "unconstitutional." Just looking at the raw census numbers from 1920, I can tell you that California should have had 14 seats, but was stuck only with the 11 seats it had from the 1913 reapportionment; i.e., it was underrepresented, and how! Seriously, I'd like to see you attempt to make an argument that such a reapportionment, from a present-day standpoint, is constitutional. Foofighter20x (talk) 05:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I never said the editor edited in bad faith. I said that it was silly to argue and question intelligence when people are only demanding verification with reliable sources. I was perfectly clear in the early going that I believe there was no justification for Congress's action. As a result, I would never attempt to defend the constitutionality of that action. Instead of calling people "knuckleheads", why don't you pause to read what was actually written as you got me wrong twice: I never said the person edited in bad faith (I said he was defensive and insulting when all he had to do was provide actual sources) and I never defended the constitutionality of the lack of reapportionment (I noted that we needed to prove it wasn't constitutional). -Rrius (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, no. You did assume bad faith, or did you forget having written this sparkling gem of generosity?

In the future, I would advise you, when you have a citation, to respond to requests for a citation by providing it rather than saying, "I'm right, and you're stupid", which is, in effect, what you have been doing here. [emphasis mine.]

If that ain't assuming bad faith, then I'll eat my hat. No need to sink to his level, dude. As for our other friend in this discussion: yes, he could play a lot nicer. He could also get his facts straight. Baker v. Carr didn't declare anything unconstitutional; it only said that federal courts could reach the merits of state legislature redistricting challenges (at issue was the districting plan for Tennessee's state legislative districts for its state legislature and not Tennessee's congressional districts; also, prior cases bringing the same challenge were dismissed as political questions). The first SCOTUS case that held a state reapportionment of federal congressional districts unconstitutional was Wesberry v. Sanders. Foofighter20x (talk) 03:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Apportionment for 2010

It was all wrong on this page.

I used the Huntington-Hill method, and the latest population estimates to come up with more accurate figures.

Given the current population:

Alabama 4,627,851 Alaska 683,478 Arizona 6,338,755 Arkansas 2,834,797 California 36,553,215 Colorado 4,861,515 Connecticut 3,502,309 Delaware 864,764 District of Columbia 588,292 Florida 18,251,243 Georgia 9,544,750 Hawaii 1,283,388 Idaho 1,499,402 Illinois 12,852,548 Indiana 6,345,289 Iowa 2,988,046 Kansas 2,775,997 Kentucky 4,241,474 Louisiana 4,293,204 Maine 1,317,207 Maryland 5,618,344 Massachusetts 6,449,755 Michigan 10,071,822 Minnesota 5,197,621 Mississippi 2,918,785 Missouri 5,878,415 Montana 957,861 Nebraska 1,774,571 Nevada 2,565,382 New Hampshire 1,315,828 New Jersey 8,685,920 New Mexico 1,969,915 New York 19,297,729 North Carolina 9,061,032 North Dakota 639,715 Ohio 11,466,917 Oklahoma 3,617,316 Oregon 3,747,455 Pennsylvania 12,432,792 Rhode Island 1,057,832 South Carolina 4,407,709 South Dakota 796,214 Tennessee 6,156,719 Texas 23,904,380 Utah 2,645,330 Vermont 621,254 Virginia 7,712,091 Washington 6,468,424 West Virginia 1,812,035 Wisconsin 5,601,640 Wyoming 522,830

And using the following algorithm:

 //distribute congressional districts in excess of each state's given 1 and 2 senate seats. (538 - 3 * 51)
   for (j = 0; j < 385; j++) {

       //rank the states
       for (i = 0; i < 51; i++)
           state[i].rank = state[i].population * hunt_hill_tab[state[i].cong_dists];

       //sort by rank
       qsort((void *) & state, 51, sizeof (struct state_struct), (compfn) compare);

       //add 1 to the highest ranked
       state[i - 1].cong_dists++;
   }

You get the following:

Alabama 7 Alaska 1 Arizona 9 Arkansas 4 California 53 Colorado 7 Connecticut 5 DC 1 Delaware 1 Florida 26 Georgia 14 Hawaii 2 Idaho 2 Illinois 19 Indiana 9 Iowa 4 Kansas 4 Kentucky 6 Louisiana 6 Maine 2 Maryland 8 Massachusetts 9 Michigan 15 Minnesota 8 Mississippi 4 Missouri 8 Montana 1 Nebraska 3 Nevada 4 New Hampshire 2 New Jersey 13 New Mexico 3 New York 28 North Carolina 13 North Dakota 1 Ohio 17 Oklahoma 5 Oregon 5 Pennsylvania 18 Rhode Island 2 South Carolina 6 South Dakota 1 Tennessee 9 Texas 34 Utah 4 Vermont 1 Virginia 11 Washington 9 West Virginia 3 Wisconsin 8 Wyoming 1

Now add each state's senate delegation: and you end up with :

Alabama 9 Alaska 3 Arizona 11 +1 Arkansas 6 California 55 Colorado 9 Connecticut 7 DC 3 Delaware 3 Florida 28 +1 Georgia 16 +1 Hawaii 4 Idaho 4 Illinois 21 Indiana 11 Iowa 6 -1 Kansas 6 Kentucky 8 Louisiana 8 -1 Maine 4 Maryland 10 Massachusetts 11 -1 Michigan 17 Minnesota 10 Mississippi 6 Missouri 10 -1 Montana 3 Nebraska 5 Nevada 6 +1 New Hampshire 4 New Jersey 15 New Mexico 5 New York 30 -1 North Carolina 15 North Dakota 3 Ohio 19 -1 Oklahoma 7 Oregon 7 Pennsylvania 20 -1 Rhode Island 4 South Carolina 8 South Dakota 3 Tennessee 11 Texas 36 +2 Utah 6 +1 Vermont 3 Virginia 13 Washington 11 West Virginia 5 Wisconsin 10 Wyoming 3

Which makes sense, as these changes reflects the population's movement further west and south. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.251.96.14 (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Plugging in your own numbers constitutes original research, which violates Wikipedia policy (see WP:OR). The existing numbers, whatever you may think of them, are a verifiable set of data from an external source. If you want to post a "better" set of numbers, please produce such a source; don't just make up your own. Rklear (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The revised electoral changes by state for the year 2010 IS NOT original research. These numbers did not pop out of my head. They are the numbers derived from the Huntington Hill method as defined by federal law and the Census Bureau. The previous source was Benson, Clark (2007-12-27). "Displacement of Katrina Victims Still Has Impact:Apportionment in 2010". Now that source sounds like original research to me. What were his methodologies? How did he come up with his numbers. I posted the algorithm used to devise the changes. It's totally transparent. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. 'Rklear' has asserted that I have inserted original research but where is his proof?

From the Clark Benson pdf:

"Based upon these projections, the average number of persons per district would be close to 722,000 persons compared to 647,000 based upon the 2000 census numbers.

Seat Shifts: How do these population numbers translate into the shift of seats based upon this set of projections? As these are only projections, several years out, there are ‘probable changes’ and ‘possible changes’ amongst the states. As to the ‘probable changes’, there could be 14 seats shifting amongst 21 states, 9 gainers and 12 losers. All the gainers are in the South and West and all of the losers are in the East and Midwest except Louisiana and…drum roll please, California. Based upon these projections, the biggest gainers are: Texas, up 4 to 36 seats and Florida, up 2 to 27 and Arizona, up 2 to 10. The other gainers are: North Carolina, up 1 to 14; South Carolina, up 1 to 7; Georgia, up 1 to 14; Utah, up 1 to 4; Nevada, up 1 to 4; and Oregon, up 1 to 6."

Benson does not use the Huntington-Hill method used by the Census Bureau, He uses averages. The bureau does not use the average population per congressional district, but the Huntington Hill method, which is what I have used.

The numbers I used were based on the very same mathematical formula used by the Census Bureau as applied to the current population estimate of all the states. Anyone with a spreadsheet could do what I did. that's hardly original. DrVonMalfoy 18:51, 7 October 2008

The difference here is that his work is published independently of Wikipedia, whereas you are not. Send the guy who wrote the article cited an email asking for updated numbers. Or find someplace reputable to publish your numbers. Until then, just posting it here and telling us how you did it is Original Research, and is not a valid cite. Foofighter20x (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Foofighter here. It's quite possible that different analyzers will produce varied results, and the 10-month-old Clark Benson may not be the best. I'd welcome an updated, published alternative. But Wikipedia is clear in its prohibition of original research and synthesizing data to reach a conclusion, as was done by DrVonMalfoy. Incidentally, Clark Benson's original research is allowed, since it is published by a 3rd party.--Appraiser (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Original research in the Wikipedia sense means unsourced. Because Benson's numbers come independently of Wikipedia, they are not OR in the Wikipedia sense. Your numbers, regardless of whether they are accurate, do not come from an independent source. This means your numbers are OR. SMP0328. (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Can the Huntington-Hill method, sometimes called "method of equal proportions" be clarified or justified?

After this recent Judd Gregg and US Census flap, I've been considering the hot potato that apportionment of US Representatives will be after 2010. One problem is that of counting (who to count and who not to), but that's a different problem than what is concerning me at the moment. So, assuming we have undisputed census figures for each state, the (hopefully blind and objective) mathematical method for determining how many Representatives each state gets sure seems different than what is depicted at United_States_Congressional_Apportionment#The_Equal_Proportions_Method.

The constraints applied to this problem are that the total number of Representatives is fixed and determined in advance by law: 435, and that each state, even the least populous, must get at least one Representative.

Let

$K\$ be the number of states (currently 50).

$1\leq k\leq K\$ be the index of k^th state. It doesn't matter how they're ordered.

$P_{k}\$ be the agreed census population for the k^th state.

$P=\sum _{k=1}^{K}P_{k}\$ is the total population of all K states (excluding DC and the territories).

$N_{k}\$ is the number of Representatives for the k^th state that we are trying to determine.

$N=\sum _{k=1}^{K}N_{k}\$ is the total number of Representatives in the House for all K states (excluding DC and the territories) which is currently 435.

$q>0\$ is the nationwide constant of proportionality or quota ratio for proportionately allocating Representatives of a state as a function of its population.

So, if we could actually have fractional numbers of persons as Representatives,

$N_{k}\ =\ q\ P_{k}\quad \quad \forall \ 1\leq k\leq K$

$\sum _{k=1}^{K}N_{k}\ =\sum _{k=1}^{K}\ q\ P_{k}=q\sum _{k=1}^{K}P_{k}$

or

$\ N=qP\quad$

$\ q={\frac {N}{P}}\quad$

But, of course, we cannot divide Congressional Representatives into fractions even if we might like to tear them apart on occasion. Each states House delegation must be an integer number of people at least as big as one. Wouldn't this mean:

$N_{k}\ =\lceil q\ P_{k}\rceil \quad \quad \forall \ 1\leq k\leq K$ ?

where

$\lceil x\rceil =\min \,\{n\in \mathbb {Z} \mid n\geq x\}$ is the ceiling function (which means always round up).

Now if q > 0 was arbitrarily small (but positive), then each state would get 1 Representative. It wouldn't be particularly well apportioned and it wouldn't add up to N=435. We want

$N=\sum _{k=1}^{K}N_{k}=\sum _{k=1}^{K}\lceil q\ P_{k}\rceil \$

Then couldn't q be increased monotonically, thus increasing some of the N_k and the total $\sum _{k=1}^{K}N_{k}=\sum _{k=1}^{K}\lceil q\ P_{k}\rceil \$ until it reaches the legislated N=435 value? Would that not be the meaning of proportional representation with the constraints that N_k must be an integer at least as large as 1? How is there any paradox in this method (assuming that, as q increases we don't have two states simultaneously increasing their integer N_k and the total jumping from 434 to 436) and where the heck does that Huntington-Hill method that is depicted at United_States_Congressional_Apportionment#The_Equal_Proportions_Method come from? How does that possibly have anything to do with true proportional allocation of a fixed number of seats in the House?

I can tell that this q is is close to 1/A in the article, but I have no idea where this geometric mean of N_k and N_k+1 comes from. What motivated Huntington or Hill or whomever to use that mathematical construct?

To compare this and the H-H method more closely:

For the k^th state,

$N_{k}-1<q\ P_{k}\leq N_{k}\quad \quad \forall \ 1\leq k\leq K$

$\sum _{k=1}^{K}(N_{k}-1)<\sum _{k=1}^{K}(qP_{k})\leq \sum _{k=1}^{K}N_{k}$

$N-K<qP\leq N$

which appears to put a pretty tight global bound on q,

${\frac {N-K}{P}}={\frac {N}{P}}-{\frac {K}{P}}<q\leq {\frac {N}{P}}$

I guess, perhaps there is a problem or paradox in that this bound should also be true for each state,

${\frac {N_{k}-1}{P_{k}}}<q\leq {\frac {N_{k}}{P_{k}}}\quad \quad \forall \ 1\leq k\leq K$

So, I guess that this q value would have to satisfy all 50 bounded inequalities. But I believe that the minimum q that satisfies

$\sum _{k=1}^{K}\lceil q\ P_{k}\rceil =\sum _{k=1}^{K}N_{k}=N\$

would have to satisfy all of those bounded inequalities.

${\frac {P_{k}}{N_{k}}}\leq {\frac {1}{q}}<{\frac {P_{k}}{N_{k}-1}}\quad \quad \forall \ 1\leq k\leq K$

Now, this 1/q looks something like the "A" that is in the article. But it's not the same. There is no geometric mean of N_k and N_k+1 in it.

What does the H-H method depicted have to do with accurate proportional allocation of a finite resource (seats in the House of Representatives) among the population?

Can someone explain this? 96.237.148.44 (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I found more references to the method in .gov land (which should be authorative about things governmental) and put those references in the article. There is no explanation as to where this geometric mean thingie comes from, but it does confirm it as the Law (sorta, i don't see this geometric mean thing in the Law but it does mention "method of equal proportions" in the law and at least two governmental agencies have referred to the reciprocal geometric mean in the formula. I think this is contrived and does not strictly implement the most equal proportion. But, of course, no one here will change it. So I'll leave it alone. 96.237.148.44 (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The justification for it is such: Statute mandates the use of the "method of equal proportions." The Census Bureau uses that method, which is identical to the Huntingdon method (I don't know why it's called Huntingdon-Hill... Huntingdon took a rough idea by Hill, changed it, slapped a new name on it and made it his, and then proceded to publicly berate Hill in order to discredit Hill's method).

Anyway, I think your confusion may lie in the order of seat distribution. Every State gets its first seat regardless. Once done, the only task left is to apportion out the remaining 385 seats. They do this by taking each State's population and dividing it by the geometric mean of "the number of seats a State has" and "the number of seats a State has plus one." The number that results is called the priority number. They do this for seats 2 through 60 for each state. They then arrange all the priority numbers for all seats of each state in one ordered list, and give out the next 385 seats one-seat-at-a-time to the State with the largest priority number.

Your sequence above does not follow this order, so its no surprise if you get different numbers. Hope this helps. Foofighter20x (talk) 23:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Also see my answer at Talk: Huntington–Hill method #Can the Huntington-Hill method, sometimes called "method of equal proportions" be clarified or justified?. --84.151.17.20 (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Error on the Map

The map at the very top of the page is wrong. Nebraska has three, not five. But I don't know how to edit it. Troglo (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have the image's creator on it. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 02:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Undocumented persons...

I really have to admit that I don't see the point of the section covering the Rodriguez paper on the exclusion of undocumented persons. The Constitution mandates every person be counted, so the inclusion of that section is conjectural/hypothetical, and thus not really encyclopedic. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 00:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Change it back.—Markles 12:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about this on the bus today on the way into the University I attend... I think this information, if included, should not be under a section on projected enumerations in the future; however, the actual impact of undocumented persons on the apportionment (i.e., who wins and who loses congressionally from undocumented populations) is still interesting nonetheless. It does raise interesting questions, and the Rodriguez paper would be better utilized in reoriented to such a section. However, I'm not going to unilaterally put the information back into the article until this is discussed. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of "Indians not taxed"

I am confused about the meaning of "Indians not taxed" in the apportionment clause. As I understand, all American Indians born in the U.S have been U.S citizens since 1924. Although I know tribes living on reservations have a certain limited degree of sovereignty, I assume they also pay taxes, but I'm not sure about that (in Canada for example, "status Indians" are exempt from provincial and federal taxes, but corporations owned by Indian bands are not). Anyway, I guess my question is : are reservation Indians currently counted for the purposes of apportionment of seats in Congress or not ? Also, it's not clear to me if reservations are federal land or privately-held land that happens to be part of the state where they are located. Please clarify. 187.34.77.68 (talk) 10:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The census is based upon residency, not citizenship. Hence, native americans, and whoever else happens to be living in a state are counted. http://www.census.gov/population/apportionment/about/faq.html#Q2 While there is some debate about the appropriateness of this, that's where we stand. (Border states like AZ, TX, NM would likely lose House seats if only citizens were included.) Uberhill 18:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The phrase "Indians not taxed" is an anachronism at this point. It refers to Native Americans who lived more or less under their own laws and whose relationship to the U.S. central government was nation-to-nation rather than citizen-to-government. This was a common situation in the "unsettled" (by Whites) Western parts of the country in the 18th and much of the 19th century. The U.S. government never quite treated these Indian tribes as equals, but there was a recognition that they were in practice not under effective U.S. jurisdiction; they weren't subject to taxes and didn't vote in U.S. elections, and so it seemed appropriate to not count them for the census.

I'm not sure when the last of the "Indians not taxed" groups ceased to exist, but I imagine that by the end of the Indian Wars in the 1890s, when all the Western Tribes had been forced onto reservations, is probably a good guess. Certainly by the 1924 law they were counted in the census.

The debate over who exactly has jurisdiction over reservations is still a live and touchy subject. New York and various Native American tribes there are wrangling over this subject when it comes to taxes on cigarettes and gasoline sold on reservations, for instance. I think in general Native American governments tend to prefer to deal with the Federal government rather than the states, though inhabitants of reservations are citizens of the states where they live and vote in state elections. --Jfruh (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Effected when?

The table in the section Past apportionments says the 2010 apportionment will be effected in 2013. The text in the very next section says that it will already be in place for the 2012 elections. I do not know which is correct. KarlFrei (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe the sense of the term "effected" is intended to mean that when Congress convenes in January 2013, it will the first Congress to sit with that particular apportionment resulting from the 2010 census.

• 2010 Apr: Census taken.
• 2010 Dec: Census reported to President.
• 2011 Jan: Census reported to Congress. Congress informs states of number of seats for which they each must reapportion.
• 2012 Nov: First general election under new apportionment.
• 2013 Jan: Reps elected in Nov take their seats, start making legislation.

Hope that makes sense... -- Foofighter20x (talk) 00:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)