1. Explain the Alabama Paradox.

An apportionment paradox exists when the rules for apportionment in a

political system produce results which are unexpected or seem to violate
common sense. To apportion is to divide into parts according to some
rule, the rule typically Albeing one of proportion. Certain quantities, like
milk, can be divided in any proportion whatsoever; others, such as horses,
cannot—only whole numbers will do. In the latter case, there is an
inherent tension between the desire to obey the rule of proportion as
closely as possible and the constraint restricting the size of each portion to
discrete values. This results, at times, in unintuitive observations, or
paradoxes.

2. Describe a population paradox.

The population paradox is a counterintuitive result of some procedures for

apportionment. When two states have populations increasing at different
rates, a small state with rapid growth can lose a legislative seat to a big
state with slower growth. Some of the earlier Congressional
apportionment methods, such as Hamilton, could exhibit the population
paradox. In 1900, Virginia lost a seat to Maine, even though Virginia's
population was growing more rapidly. However, divisor methods such as
the current method do not.

3. Explain the New States Paradox.

Given a fixed number of total representatives (as determined by the

United States House of Representatives), adding a new state would in
theory reduce the number of representatives for existing states, as under
the United States Constitution each state is entitled to at least one
representative regardless of its population. Also, even if the number of
members in the House of Representatives is increased by the number of
Representatives in the new state, a pre-existing state could lose a seat
because of how the apportionment rules deal with rounding methods. In
1907, when Oklahoma became a state, it was given a fair share of seats
and the total number of seats increased by that number. The House
increased from 386 to 391 members. A precomputation of apportionment
affected the number of seats because of other states: New York lost a
seat while Maine gained one.

4. Create an apportionment problem of any kind and show that each of the
paradoxes above is possible.

A. Alabama Paradox
 The first serious problem with Hamilton’s method occurred in 1880,
when it was noted that if the House of Representatives were to have
299 seats, then Alabama would get 8 seats, but if the House of
Representatives were to have 300 seats, then Alabama would end up
with 7 seats. This is how the name of Alabama paradox came about.

State StandQuta Apport. StandQuota Apport.

(for M=299) (for M=299) (for M=300) (for M=300)

Alabama 7.646 8 7.671 7

Texas 9.64 9 9.672 10

Illinois 18.64 18 18.702 19

B. Population Paradox

Group A can lose an item to group B even when the rate of growth of
the population of group A is greater than in group B. The Population
Paradox was discovered around 1900, when it was shown that a state
could lose seats in the House of Representatives in spite of a rapidly
growing population. (Virginia was growing much faster than Maine--
about 60% faster--but Virginia lost a seat in the House while Maine
gained a seat.)
C. New States Paradox

The addition of a new group, with a corresponding increase in the

number of available items, can cause a change in the apportionment
of items among the other groups. The New States Paradox was
discovered in 1907 when Oklahoma became a state. Before
Oklahoma became a state, the House of Representatives had 386
seats. Comparing Oklahoma's population to other states, it was clear
that Oklahoma should have 5 seats so the House size was increased by
five to 391 seats. The intent was to leave the number of seats
unchanged for the other states. However, when the apportionment
was recalculated, Maine gained a seat (4 instead of 3) and New York
lost a seat (from 38 to 37).