Apportionment Method Pros And Cons

The apportionment method and its constant revamping is a true sign of a democracy trying to obtain equal representation for all of its citizens. Over the last 230 years, the reapportionment of the congressional districts has changed approximately five times. All of these changes occurred because the number of people represented increased and also because of the addition of three states, New Mexico, Alaska and Arizona.
The types of apportionment methods had their plusses and negatives. The Jefferson method, divided the total population by a number of congressional seats, this gave a divisor. The divisor then was used to divide each state’s population and the decimal number was dropped. The result was a surplus of seats so the divisor was scaled down until
The Webster method, similar to Jefferson, got a divisor by dividing the total population by the number of seats but instead dropping the decimal points when state populations were subsequently divided they used the decimal places to determine the whole number for the seats. They used 0.5 or higher to round up a whole number or any thin less to keep the whole number as it is. Like Jefferson, if a surplus the divisor was adjusted down but unlike Jefferson, it could also be adjusted up. This method was adopted again in 1910. This maintains the same plusses but the negatives to a lesser degree than the Jefferson Method. The Hamilton method followed the previous methods of determining a divisor and dividing each state population by that divisor and whole numbers are used as the initial allotment of representatives. However, that’s where the similarities ended, decimal numbers were used as a guide to determine what to do with the surplus. The state with the largest decimal number was added received the first extra seat. This created some paradoxes. Huntington-Hill Method and current method uses the Webster method but the extra focus is put on the decimals after the state