In class the apportionment was discussed. Apportionment is the procedure through which representation in congress and other democratic bodies are used. The method we discussed was Hamilton’s method (named after Alexander Hamilton). While at first glance the method looks fair, pragmatic and democratic we notice an incredible flaw.
Who could believe that a state could gain a seat(s) by actually losing citizens from its district? Well this is quite possible and does happen rarely under the Hamilton method. This travesty is named the Alabama paradox. The paradox is named after Alabama because that is the state in which it first occurred. The constitution demands that we use apportionment in the status quo, through the Hamilton method. No, it does not say Hamilton method in the constitution even though he is accredited with the method in the document. This was first discovered after reading the 1880 census, I always wonder if it were noticed prior.
Uimately, I am a firm believer in this imperfect, normally consistent method. It works, and reflects demographic trends accurately for the most part. Are you all in favor of Hamilton’s method or do you disagree? Remember that if you do you should provide a pragmatic alternative that answers the criticism of the method.
I am fine with the Hamilton method, since it is rather simple yet effective and the Alabama paradox is pretty rare in the big picture. The method's flaws are also counterbalanced by the Senate, which has equal representation and is required to vote on anything the House passes before it can go into law (according to the Constitution, at least).
ReplyDeleteI personally love Hamilton's Method. I think it is fair and gets to the exact point. On the other hand I can see on why some Senate's do not like it. They want the exact number and the proper number of Representatives in the Senate.
ReplyDeleteI enjoy Hamilton's Method. I believe that it is fair way to get positions. Even Though their is a lot of issues with it, I think it should keep being used. Besides, in the end someone usually ends up kinda getting screwed up so I do not see the big deal.
ReplyDeleteI think Hamilton's method is for the most part fair, and accurate. It can be a positive outcome to gain a seat in some situations. I think that this method should continue to be used.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think Hamilton's method is ok, just ok though. I don't understand the step in which everything is rounded down, if you take away all decimal numbers, it will take away a whole number or two. other than that, its ok.
ReplyDeleteI think Hamilton’s method is alright since it does take population into account, which is fairer than say apportionment by a state’s geographic size. If apportionment was based on geographic size, than a state such as Montana would have more representatives, and thusly more of a say, than a smaller, but more densely populated state such as New Jersey. The Alabama paradox is ridiculous, but if it does not happen often then it should not be too big of a concern.
ReplyDeleteI don't like the Alabama paradox with Hamilton's method. It mathematically doesn't make sense. I think geographic size is a better determinate of delegates because it takes into consideration the potential for the state to grow.
ReplyDeleteParadoxes are so weird, aren't they? Unfortunately, it will turn out that all the apportionment methods have them, so the best we can do is try to find a method that has them occur least often. Also, as I mentioned in class today, the paradox we saw in class last week is actually called the Population Paradox - the Alabama Paradox is something else (equally weird!). My bad for the verbal slip, sorry.
ReplyDelete