In class we discussed Hamilton's method of apportionment. This method is mostly used to decide how many seats are given to the House of Representatives. While it has its flaws it is widely accepted by most of the US. However, there are more methods of apportionment other than Hamilton's.
One such method is Jefferson's method. This method is similar to Hamilton's and follows the same guidelines up until the numbers are rounded down to the lower quota. If the total number added up by the lower quota is not correct, by trial and error, find a "modified" district size. When the state size is divided by the new district size and rounded down the number must be equal to the modified district size. In short, the number of seats does not change, it is the district size that must be changed. The only problem this method is said to have is the fact that it violates the Quota Rule. I tried to understand what the Quota Rule was, but came up with nothing. Perhaps Kira will touch on this next class.
There are multiple other forms of apportionment that have the same problem as Jefferson's. While Hamilton's method has more than one, these other methods only violate the Quota Rule. Maybe we should look into using another type of apportionment in order to select seats for Representatives.
Good example! I think it helps out a lot with people are unfamiliar with this method!
ReplyDeleteI agree, good example. I'm a little confused when you discussed the trial and error to find a "modified" district size. I guess I'm not sure what modified means in this example. I'm also curious as to what types of trial and error situations the voters or counters are using to determine the best "modified" district size.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed this other example of apportionment. Although it is very similar to Hamilton's Method, I think we could use this at one point perhaps. I also am confused with whole trial and error though. I also want to know what this Quota Rule is.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed this other example of apportionment. Although it is very similar to Hamilton's Method, I think we could use this at one point perhaps. I also am confused with whole trial and error though. I also want to know what this Quota Rule is.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious to know what the quota rule is as well. This is very similar to Hamilton's but I think it could be a good way of apportionment because instead of adding a seat, the district size changes. It's a little confusing,and I would like to see an example done using this method.
ReplyDeleteI searched for the quota rule and what I could come up with was... "a state's fair apportionment should be either its upper or lower quota" which to me seems like common sense but that's what I found... lol
ReplyDeleteWhen is Jefferson's method appropriate and when is Hamilton's method used? I think that they both have pro's and cons and its important that we come up with a universal rule to find out when each is appropriate.
ReplyDeleteI am also confused by the “trial and error” process mentioned in your post. I too would like to see an example of this method in action. Overall, I think Jefferson’s method sounds interesting and different.
ReplyDeleteGood discussion, guys! I have to start reading these comments later, I'm missing most of the discussion before class. I hope today's class answered some of these questions, like about when other methods have been used. We will also discuss the timeline of congressional apportionment in class next week. As for the Quota Condition Sam mentioned, Zach is correct that it is the condition that every state gets either its upper or lower quota. Makes sense, right, since those are the two whole numbers that are closest to the state's actual quota. But in fact many methods (including Jefferson's, as Ben mentioned) do not meet this requirement. That is, they can end up giving a state more or less than that. Again, weird.
ReplyDelete