Voting and

Apportionment
6.1. Introduction to Apportionment
6.2. Introduction to Voting
LEARNING OBJECTIVES

1. Apply the different apportionment

methods in solving problems; and

2. Explain the different voting system

Apportionment

 A method of dividing a whole into various parts

 A mathematical analysis that has its roots in the

U.S. Constitution
Apportionment
 In 1790, when the House of Representatives attempted
to apportion itself, the issue then was to find how many
voters would be represented by each member of the
House.
 The first method introduced in 1790 to solved this
problem was suggested by Thomas Jefferson and came
to be known as the Jefferson Plan.
 Another method was proposed by Alexander Hamilton,
the Hamilton Plan, which was only adapted later at about
1850.
 State Populations
Application Andersen 3 250

Consider a fictitious country Ballard 2 750

named Kolob with a population Bednar 3 000
of 33,000 and having twelve Christofferson 2 500
states. The population of each Cook 3 500
state is given by the table at the Hales 3 000
right. Suppose that Kolob’s
Holland 2 500
constitution calls for 70
Neilsen 2 250
representatives to be chosen for
these twelve states. The number Nelson 4 000
of representatives is to be Oaks 3 750
apportioned according to the Rasband 1 000
population of each state. Renlund 1 500
Total 33 000
The Hamilton Plan
 Standard Divisor
total population
Standard divisor 
number of people to apportion
 Definition
 Standard Quota
- is the whole number part of the quotient of a population divided by the
standard divisor
 Lower Quota ( L )
- is the whole number part of the quotient of a population divided by the
standard divisor
 Upper Quota ( U )
- is the whole number part of the quotient of a population divided by the
standard divisor
The Hamilton Plan
 Standard Divisor
Standard divisor total population

number of people to apportion
Total Population = 33 000
Number of People to Apprortion = 70

Standard divisor = 33,000 / 70

Standard divisor= 471.43

 The Hamilton Plan
Populations
State Populations Quotient = SD(471.43)
Standard Quota (L)

Andersen 3 250 6.89 6

Ballard 2 750 5.83 5
Bednar 3 000 6.36 6
Christofferson 2 500 5.30 5
Cook 3 500 7.42 7
Hales 3 000 6.36 6
Holland 2 500 5.30 5
Neilsen 2 250 4.77 4
Nelson 4 000 8.48 8
Oaks 3 750 7.95 7
Rasband 1 000 2.12 2
Renlund 1 500 3.18 3
Total 33 000 64
The Hamilton Plan
Populations Standard Quota Additional Number of
State Populations Quotient = SD(471.43) (L) Representative Representatives

Andersen 3 250 6.89 6 1 7

Ballard 2 750 5.83 5 1 6
Bednar 3 000 6.36 6 0 6
Christofferson 2 500 5.30 5 0 5
Cook 3 500 7.42 7 1 8
Hales 3 000 6.36 6 0 6
Holland 2 500 5.30 5 0 5
Neilsen 2 250 4.77 4 1 5
Nelson 4 000 8.48 8 1 9
Oaks 3 750 7.95 7 1 8
Rasband 1 000 2.12 2 0 2
Renlund 1 500 3.18 3 0 3
Total 33 000 64 70
The Jefferson Plan
 The standard quota is computed as the same way as
the Hamilton Plan
 A modified Standard Divisor is employed if the total
of the standard sub-quotas does not yield the correct
number of representatives
 The Modified Standard Divisor is chose by trial and error
 Modified Standard Divisor must be less than the Standard
Divisor
The Jefferson Plan
Populations Standard Populations Number of
State Populations Quotient = SD(471.43) Quota (L)
Quotient =
MSD(440) Representatives

Andersen 3 250 6.89 6 7.39 7

Ballard 2 750 5.83 5 6.25 6
Bednar 3 000 6.36 6 6.82 6
Christofferson 2 500 5.30 5 5.68 5
Cook 3 500 7.42 7 7.95 7
Hales 3 000 6.36 7 6.81 7
Holland 2 500 5.30 5 5.68 5
Neilsen 2 250 4.77 4 5.11 5
Nelson 4 000 8.48 8 9.09 9
Oaks 3 750 7.95 7 8.52 8
Rasband 1 000 2.12 2 2.27 2
Renlund 1 500 3.18 3 3.41 3
Total 33 000 65 70
Adam’s Method of Apportionment
 Proposed by former U.S. President John Quincy
Adams

 Has
the same formula to compute for the Standard
Quota of each state

 Each
Standard Quota is rounded up to the next whole
number, or the Upper Quota (U)
 Adam’s Method of Apportionment
Populations
State Populations Quotient = SD(471.43)
Standard Quota (U)

Andersen 3 250 6.89 7

Ballard 2 750 5.83 6
Bednar 3 000 6.36 7
Christofferson 2 500 5.30 6
Cook 3 500 7.42 8
Hales 3 300 7.00 7
Holland 2 500 5.30 6
Neilsen 2 250 4.77 5
Nelson 4 000 8.48 9
Oaks 3 750 7.95 8
Rasband 1 000 2.12 3
Renlund 1 500 3.18 4
Total 33 000 76
Adam’s Method of Apportionment
Populations Standard Populations Number of
State Populations Quotient = SD(471.43) Quota (U)
Quotient =
MSD(499.65) Representatives

Andersen 3 250 6.89 7 6.50 7

Ballard 2 750 5.83 6 5.50 6
Bednar 3 000 6.36 7 6.00 6
Christofferson 2 500 5.30 6 5.00 5
Cook 3 500 7.42 8 7.00 8
Hales 3 000 6.36 6 6.00 6
Holland 2 500 5.30 6 5.00 5
Neilsen 2 250 4.77 5 4.50 5
Nelson 4 000 8.48 9 8.01 9
Oaks 3 750 7.95 8 7.51 8
Rasband 1 000 2.12 3 2.00 2
Renlund 1 500 3.18 4 3.00 3
Total 33 000 76 70
Webster Method of Apportionment
 Therules for rounding-off numbers apply to the
quotients

 TheModified Standard Divisor may be less than, or

equal to, or greater than the Standard Divisor
 Webster Method of Apportionment
Populations
State Populations Quotient = SD(471.43)
Rounded Value

Andersen 3 250 6.89 7

Ballard 2 750 5.83 6
Bednar 3 000 6.36 6
Christofferson 2 500 5.30 5
Cook 3 500 7.42 7
Hales 3 000 6.36 6
Holland 2 500 5.30 5
Neilsen 2 250 4.77 5
Nelson 4 000 8.48 8
Oaks 3 750 7.95 8
Rasband 1 000 2.12 2
Renlund 1 500 3.18 3
Total 33 000 68
Webster Method of Apportionment
Populations Rounded Populations Number of
State Populations Quotient = SD(471.43) Value
Quotient =
MSD(470) Representatives

Andersen 3 250 6.89 7 6.91 7

Ballard 2 750 5.83 6 5.85 6
Bednar 3 000 6.36 6 6.38 6
Christofferson 2 500 5.30 5 5.32 5
Cook 3 500 7.42 7 7.45 7
Hales 3 300 7.00 7 7.02 7
Holland 2 500 5.30 5 5.32 5
Neilsen 2 250 4.77 5 4.79 5
Nelson 4 000 8.48 8 8.51 9
Oaks 3 750 7.95 8 7.98 8
Rasband 1 000 2.12 2 2.13 2
Renlund 1 500 3.18 3 3.19 3
Total 33 000 69 70
Huntington-Hill Apportionment Method
 Step 1: Calculate the Standard Quota, lower quotas, and upper
quotas of each of the subgroups.

 Step 2: Determine the Geometric Mean of each of the sub-

group’s lower quota and upper quota.
 If the Standard Quota is less than the Geometric Mean, round the quota down.
 If the Standard Quota is greater than or equal to the Geometric Mean, round
the quota up.

 Step 3: If the sum of the Rounded Standard Quotas equals the

number of representatives, you are done. Otherwise, choose a
Modified Standard Divisor and calculate the modified quotas and
rounded modified quotas, until the required number is achieved.
Huntington-Hill Apportionment Method
Populations Standard Standard Geometric Number of
State Populations Quotient = Quota (L) Quota (U) Mean = LU Representatives
SD(471.43)

Andersen 3 250 6.89 6 7 6.48 7

Ballard 2 750 5.83 5 6 5.48 6
Bednar 3 000 6.36 6 7 6.48 6
Christofferso
n
2 500 5.30 5 6 5.48 5

Cook 3 500 7.42 7 8 7.48 7

Hales 3 000 6.36 6 6 6.00 6
Holland 2 500 5.30 5 6 5.48 5
Neilsen 2 250 4.77 4 5 4.47 5
Nelson 4 000 8.48 8 9 8.49 8
Oaks 3 750 7.95 7 8 7.48 8
Rasband 1 000 2.12 2 3 2.45 2
Renlund 1 500 3.18 3 4 3.46 3
Total 33 000 64 75 68
Huntington-Hill Apportionment Method
Populations Standard Standard Geometric Number of
State Populations Quotient = Quota (L) Quota (U) Mean = LU Representatives
SD(470.5)

Andersen 3 250 6.91 6 7 6.48 7

Ballard 2 750 5.84 5 6 5.48 6
Bednar 3 000 6.38 6 7 6.48 6
Christofferso
n
2 500 5.31 5 6 5.48 5

Cook 3 500 7.44 7 8 7.48 7

Hales 3 300 7.01 7 8 7.48 7
Holland 2 500 5.31 5 6 5.48 5
Neilsen 2 250 4.78 4 5 4.47 5
Nelson 4 000 8.50 8 9 8.49 9
Oaks 3 750 7.97 7 8 7.48 8
Rasband 1 000 2.13 2 3 2.45 2
Renlund 1 500 3.19 3 4 3.46 3
Total 33 000 65 76 70
Application General
Bed Capacity
Hospital
Apportioning Beds in
A 35
Hospitals
B 70
C 40
The government D 55
purchased 200 beds to be E 55
apportioned to 12 general F 30
hospitals in Mindanao. G 35
Use all methods to H 50
apportion the beds. I 30
J 20
K 30
L 50
Voting
Voting

 A sacredright and power that citizens in a

democratic country exercise to select their leaders
Application:
512 people ranked their preferences of five contestants in a
singing contest, using 1 for their favorite and 5 for their least
favorite. Results of the text votes were tallied below.

Contestant Rankings
A 5 1 4 3 1
B 4 5 1 2 2
C 3 4 5 1 3
D 2 3 2 5 4
E 1 2 3 4 5
Number of Votes 140 98 50 175 49
A. The Plurality Method of Voting

 Each voter votes for one candidate and the candidate with the
most votes wins.
 The winning candidate does not need to have a majority of the
votes.
Majority Vote – over 50% of the people voting must vote for the candidate
 In case of a tie, a special runoff election may be held. If votes
are ranked, the candidate with the greatest number of first-
place votes is declared the winner.
 Alternative choices are not considered in this method; hence its
extent is somewhat limited.
A. The Plurality Method of Voting
Contestant Rankings Contestant First-Place Votes

A 5 1 4 3 1
A 98+49=147
B 4 5 1 2 2

B 50
C 3 4 5 1 3

D 2 3 2 5 4
C 175
E 1 2 3 4 5
D 0
Number of
140 98 50 175 49
Votes
E 140

Since Contestant C received 175 votes which is the most number of votes,
this contender wins the contest.
B.1. Plurality with Elimination Method (without rank)

 Each person votes for a candidate.

 If a candidate receives a majority of votes, that candidate is
declared the winner.
 If no candidate receives a majority of votes, then the candidate
with the fewest votes is eliminated and a new election is held.
 This process continues until a candidate receives a majority of
votes.
 Limitation: holding several elections is expensive and time
consuming.
B.2. Plurality with Elimination Method (with rank or
Instant Runoff Method)

 First, eliminate the candidate with the fewest number of first-

place votes.
 If two or more of these alternatives have the same number of
first-place votes, all are eliminated unless that would eliminate
all alternatives. In that case, a different method of voting must
be used.
 Adjust the voter’s rankings of the remaining candidates.
 Repeat the same process of elimination and adjustment until
two candidates are left.
 The candidate with the majority of votes wins the election.
B.2. Plurality with Elimination Method (with rank or
Instant Runoff Method)

Contestant Rankings Contestant Rankings

A 5 1 4 3 1 A 4 1 3 3 1

B 4 5 1 2 2 B 3 4 1 2 2

C 3 4 5 1 3
C 2 3 4 1 3
D 2 3 2 5 4
D - - - - -
E 1 2 3 4 5

E 1 2 2 4 4
Number of
140 98 50 175 49
Votes
Number of Votes 140 98 50 175 49

D is eliminated since D has no first-place votes. Then make adjustments

of the voters’ ranking of the remaining candidates.
B.2. Plurality with Elimination Method (with rank or
Instant Runoff Method)

Contestant Rankings
Contestant First Place Votes
A 4 1 3 3 1

A 98+49=147
B 3 4 1 2 2

C 2 3 4 1 3 B 50

D - - - - -
C 175
E 1 2 2 4 4

Number of Votes 140 98 50 175 49 E 140

B is eliminated since B has the fewest votes. Then, again make

adjustments of the voters’ ranking of the remaining candidates.
B.2. Plurality with Elimination Method (with rank or
Instant Runoff Method)

Contestant Rankings
Contestant First Place Votes
A 3 1 2 2 1

A 98+49=147
B - - - - -

C 2 3 3 1 2 C 175

D - - - - -
E 140+50=190
E 1 2 1 3 3

Number of Votes 140 98 50 175 49

A is eliminated since A has the fewest votes. Then, again make

adjustments of the voters’ ranking of the remaining candidates.
B.2. Plurality with Elimination Method (with rank or
Instant Runoff Method)

Contestant Rankings
Contestant First Place Votes
A - - - - -

C 175+49=224
B - - - - -

C 2 2 2 1 1 E 140+98+50=288

D - - - - -

E 1 1 1 2 2

Number of Votes 140 98 50 175 49

Candidate E wins using Plurality with Elimination Method.

C. Borda Count Method of Voting

 If there are n candidates or issues in an election, each voter

ranks the candidates or issues by giving;
n points to the voter’s first choice
n-1 points to the voter’s second choice, and so on, with the
voter’s least choice receiving 1 point

 The candidate or issue that receives the greatest total points is

the winner
C. Borda Count Method of Voting
Contestant A:
Contestant Rankings
140(1)+98(5)+50(2)+175(3)+49(5) = 1500

A 5 1 4 3 1
Contestant B:
B 4 5 1 2 2 140(2)+98(1)+50(5)+175(4)+49(4) = 1524

C 3 4 5 1 3
Contestant C:
140(3)+98(2)+50(1)+175(5)+49(3) = 1688
D 2 3 2 5 4

E 1 2 3 4 5 Contestant D:
140(4)+98(3)+50(4)+175(1)+49(2) = 1327

Number of
140 98 50 175 49
Votes Contestant E:
140(5)+98(4)+50(3)+175(2)+49(1) = 1641

Contestant C wins using the Borda Count Method of Voting.

D. Pairwise Comparison Voting Method

 Each candidate is compared one-on-one with each of the other

candidates (Head-to-Head Method)

 A candidate receives 1 point for a win, 0.5 points for a tie , and
0 points for a loss.

 The candidate with the greatest number of points wins the

election.
D. Pairwise Comparison Voting Method
Contestant Rankings
Contestant Total Number of Points
A 5 1 4 3 1
B 4 5 1 2 2 A 2
C 3 4 5 1 3 B 3
D 2 3 2 5 4
C 2
E 1 2 3 4 5
D 1
Number of
140 98 50 175 49
Votes E 2

A vs B A vs C
A: 98+49 = 147 A: 98+50+49 = 197
B: 140+50+175 = 365 C: 140+175 = 315
A vs D A vs E
A: 98+175+49 = 322 A: 98+175+49 = 322
D: 140+50 = 190 E: 140+50 = 190
B vs C B vs D
B: 50+49 = 99 B: 50+175+49 = 274
C: 140+98+175 = 413 D: 140+98 = 238
B vs E C vs D
B: 50+175+49 = 274 C: 175+49 = 224
E: 140+98 = 238 D: 140+98+50 = 288
C vs E D vs E
C: 175 +49 = 224 D: 50 +49 = 99
E: 140+98+50 = 288 E: 140+98+175 = 413
D. Pairwise Comparison Voting Method

Contestant Rankings
Contestant Total Number of Points
A 5 1 4 3 1
B 4 5 1 2 2 A 2
C 3 4 5 1 3 B 3
D 2 3 2 5 4
C 2
E 1 2 3 4 5
D 1
Number of
140 98 50 175 49
Votes E 2

Contestant B wins the contest using the Pairwise Comparison

Voting Method.
Application:
800 people ranked their preferences of six barangay in a Cleanest
Barangay contest, using 1 for their favorite and 6 for their least favorite.
Results of the votes were tallied below.

Barangay Rankings
A 6 1 4 6 2
B 4 2 6 2 1
C 2 3 5 1 3
D 1 4 1 5 4
E 3 5 2 3 5
F 5 6 3 4 6
Number of Votes 160 120 200 220 100