Reapportionment math is more complicated than you think

Today, we'll find out which states will gain seats in the U.S. House (and thus the Electoral College), and which will lose seats. Roughly, if you gained population at a rate significantly greater than the whole country, you gain seats. If you lost population or gained at a rate significantly below the national gain, you lose seats.

But just how they parcel out the seats involves math much more complicated than you'd expect.

To make representation actually proportional to population, you would need (a) to multiply the number of seats in Congress by a lot, or (b) to split congressional seats across state lines. Neither is happening without changing the Constitution, so we're left with some unevenness and some complex formulas.

Start by dividing the U.S. population (roughly 310 million) by the number of House seats (435). You get about 715,000 people per House seat. But not every state has a population that is a multiple of 715,000.

If you start to try to think how you would do it, you realize that there's not one simple method. There are many different ways to parcel out the seats, and over time Congress has used different methods. Every method results in nearly every state's ratio of people : congressmen differing somewhat from the mean proportion of 715,000 : 1. The current method is based on the principle of minimizing the difference between the actual proportion from the mean proportion. It's more complicated than that, and this Wikipedia article explains it as clearly as anyone:

The Huntington–Hill method of apportionment assigns seats by finding a modified divisor D such that each constituency's priority quotient (population divided by D ), using the geometric mean of the lower and upper quota for the divisor, yields the correct number of seats that minimizes the percentage differences in the size of the congressional districts[1]. When envisioned as a proportional voting system, this is effectively a highest averages method in which the divisors are given by scriptstyle D=sqrt{n(n+1)}n being the number of seats a state is currently allocated in the apportionment process (the lower quota) and n+1 is the number of seats the state would have if it is assigned to this state (the upper quota).

The loser: A state like Montana, with just under 1 million people, gets only one Rep.

If you find our journalism valuable and relevant, please consider joining our Examiner membership program.
Find out more at www.sfexaminer.com/join/

Just Posted

Mohammed Nuru, head of SF Public Works, arrested by FBI

The head of San Francisco Public Works Mohammed Nuru has been arrested… Continue reading

Preston, advocates pressure major landlord to sell buildings to city or nonprofits

San Francisco’s largest owner of rent-controlled properties is unwilling to entertain demands… Continue reading

SF police union calls for federal prosecution of man shot by police

San Francisco’s police union urged federal authorities to intervene Monday after newly… Continue reading

NBA postpones Lakers-Clippers game that was set for Tuesday

The NBA has postponed the Lakers-Clippers game that was scheduled for Tuesday.… Continue reading

Most Read