Mary Joy T.

Molate
Subject Facilitator
◆Introduction to
Apportionment
 Learning Outcomes:

At the end of the lesson, the students must

have:
1. Used each method of apportionment to distribute
items fairly to several groups of population;
2. Identified the apportionment method that will
satisfy the fairness criteria; and
3. Identified if an apportionment problem will result in
some paradoxes.
 Apportionment is a method of
distributing a number of items proportionally
into several groups based on population
sizes.
For example, the apportionment, method can
be used to determine the number of
representatives a city should have based on
its present population.
 Hamilton Method
The Hamilton method of apportionment was
proposed by Alexander Hamilton to assign voting seats in
the House of Representatives to each represented state.
This method is based on standard divisor and
standard quota of the population.
The standard divisor is defined by the formula
◆ where P is the total population and A is the total
allocation or the number of available seats to be
assigned. On the other hand, the standard quota is
given by

◆ Where G is the size of the group. The whole number

portion of the standard quota is called lower quota
(LQ).
◆ To get the lower quota of a group, round down the
standard quota to a whole number. The standard
quota of a group with the highest decimal part is only
rounded up to a whole number if the sum of the lower
quotas is less than the value of A. The process is
repeated until the value of A is reached.
 Example 1
◆ Consider a country with 6 states and 4o seats in the
House of Representatives with populations
distributed as follows.
Population
STATE A 58, 805
STATE B 32, 780
STATE C 109, 111
STATE D 78, 900
STATE D 67, 430
STATE E 44, 862
TOTAL 391, 888

Determine the apportionment of 40 seats to the 6 states using the

Hamilton method.
◆ Solution:
The standard divisor for the population is
computed as follows:

State A State B State C State D State E State Total

F

P 58, 805 32, 780 109, 111 78,900 67, 430 44, 862 391, 888

6.00 3.35 11.14 8.05 6.88 4.58

Lower Quota 6 3 11 8 6 4 38

Final 6 3 11 8 7 5 40
Apportionment

A 40

SD 9, 797. 2
◆ The sum of the lower quota does not meet
A= 40. Thus, one additional seat is assigned
to each state starting with the state with the
highest fractional standard quota, until all
seats are assigned. In this case, add one
representative to state E and another one to
state F.
Jefferson Method
◆ The Jefferson method of apportionment
uses a modified standard divisor (MSD) which
is chosen by trial and error until the sum of
the lower quotas is equal to the required
number of allocations.
◆ The lower quota is the final
apportionment obtained at the final value of
the modified divisor.
◆ In this method, the modified standard
divisor is smaller than the original standard
divisor.
 Example 2
◆ Solve Example 1 using the Jefferson method.
◆ Solution:
State A State B State C State D State State Total
E F

P 58, 805 32, 780 109, 111 78,900 67, 430 44, 862 391, 888

6.53 3.64 12.12 8.76 7.49 4.98

Lower Quota 6 3 12 8 7 4 40

Final 6 3 12 8 7 4 40
Apportionment

A 40

Modified Std.
Divisor (MSD) 9,000
◆ The Hamilton and Jefferson methods may give
different final apportionments as shown below:

Apportionment State State State State State State Total

Method A B C D E F

Final Hamilton
Apportionment 6 3 11 8 7 5 40

Final Jefferson
Apportionment 6 3 12 8 7 4 40
 Webster Method
◆ The Webster method of apportionment
is quite similar to the Jefferson method.
Unlike the other method discussed, this
method uses ordinary rounding, making it
completely unbiased. The modified standard
divisor is determined using trial and error.
 Example 3
◆ Solve Example 1 using the Webster method.
◆ Solution:
This time, choose 9,500 as the modified standard
divisor. The sum of the lower quotas will be equal to 40.
State A State B State C State State State Total
D E F
P 58, 805 32, 780 109, 111 78,900 67, 430 44, 862 391, 888

6.19 3.45 11.49 8.31 7.10 4.72

Lower Quota 6 3 11 8 7 4 39

Final 6 3 11 8 7 5 40
Apportionment
A 40

Modified Std.
Divisor (MSD) 9,500
The Huntington-Hill Method
◆ The Huntington-Hill method of
apportionment uses the geometric means to round
standard quotas until the sum of the modified
quotas equals the exact number of seats to be
apportioned. You may need to modify the standard
divisor to get the exact total allocation.
◆ To find the geometric mean, multiply the
upper and lower quotas then get the square root. If
the geometric mean is less than the standard quota,
the final apportionment is based on the lower
quota. If otherwise, assign the upper quota.
 Example 4
◆ Solve Example 1 using Huntington- Hill method
◆ Solution: Use 9,500 as the modified standard divisor.
State A State B State C State D State E State F Total

P 58, 805 32, 780 109, 111 78,900 67, 430 44, 862 391, 888

6.19 3.45 11.49 8.31 7.10 4.72

Upper Quota 7 4 12 9 8 5

Lower Quota 6 3 11 8 7 5 40

Geometric 6.48 3.46 11.49 8.49 7.48 5

Mean
Final 6 3 11 8 7 5 40
Apportionment
A 40

Modified Std.
Divisor (MSD) 9,500
 Huntington- Hill Number
◆ When there is a need to add one item to one of
the several groups in a population, the additional
one item is given to the group with the highest
Huntington- Hill number.
◆ The formula is as follows

◆ Where G is the size of the group and A is the

current number of items assigned to this group .
 Example 5
◆ The following table shows the
number of computers assigned to the
five departments of a university in
Manila and the number of students
enrolled in each department. To which
department should new computer be
assigned using the Huntington-Hill
method?
 Department Number of Number of
Students Computers
1 Chemical Engineering 289 40
2 Mechanical Engineering 785 74
3 Computer Engineering 590 59
4 Civil Engineering 892 85
5 Architecture 345 45

Solution: Using the formula for the Huntington-Hill

number, we obtain the following:
◆ The mechanical engineering
department has the greatest
Huntington-Hill number. Thus, the
additional computer should be
given to the mechanical
engineering department.
Fairness Criterion and
Apportion Paradoxes
 The final apportionment using the
Hamilton method always yields to either equal to
the lower quota or higher than the lower quota.
The said property is one criterion of fairness for
the apportionment methods also known as the
quota criterion.
Thus, the Hamilton method always
satisfies the quota criterion, it may sometimes
result is apportion paradoxes when there is a
change in the size of the group, the required
number of allocation, and the number of groups.
 For example, a change in the
population of a group may result in losing one or
more items to a group with relatively lower
population. An increase in the number of items to
be apportioned may result in a lower
apportionment to some groups even though the
populations of the groups are not changed.
To eliminate paradoxes that can
occur using the Hamilton method, other methods
were introduced. The three most important are
Jefferson, Webster, and Huntington-Hill methods
which, however, may violate the quota criterion.
Example 6:
A country decides to apportion 200 representatives to three states.
State Population
A 940
B 9,000
C 10,000

a) Use Hamilton method to find the apportionment for the three

states.
b) If one particular state requests 201 seats, what is the final
apportionment? Where will the extra seat go?
 Solution:

a) Using the Hamilton method, we obtain the following results.

State A State B State C TOTAL
State Population 940 9,000 10,000 19,940

Standard Quota 9.43 90.27 100.30

Lower Quota 9 90 100 199

Final Apportionment 10 90 100 200

Allocation 200
Number
Standard 99.7
Divisor
 Solution:

b) If the number of representatives is changed to 201, the new apportionment will be as

follows.

State A State B State C TOTAL

State Population 940 9,000 10,000 19,940

Standard Quota 9.48 90.73 100.81

Lower Quota 9 90 100 199

Final Apportionment 9 91 101 200

Allocation 201
Number
Standard 99.2
Divisor
 Fairness Measurement
• The average constituency is used to measure the
fairness of an apportionment. It is defined as follows:

• A group is poorly represented if it has a greater

average constituency as compared to other groups.
If a group has a greater average constituency than
another group, then the difference between their
average constituencies is called absolute unfairness
of the apportionment. If the absolute unfairness is
zero, then the two groups are equally well
represented.
 Example 6

• An art guild is having a show and it has decided

that the group of painters with 152 members will
have 8 booths and the group of sculptors with 95
members will have 5 booths. Calculate the absolute
unfairness of this assignment of booths.
• Solution:
• The average constituency of the painters is

• The average constituency of the sculptors is

• The absolute unfairness is 19-19=0. Thus, the

Thank you
To be continued....