ABSTRACT
Throughout history, apportionment methods have been rejected because they lead to certain problems, and they have been replaced by other methods that lead to the same or new problems. As seen in the previous chapter, the Hamilton method is susceptible to various paradoxes (the Alabama paradox and the population paradox). On the other hand, certain divisor methods are biased toward larger states (giving them extra seats), while others are biased toward smaller states. As well, divisor methods need not preserve quota (giving some states more or fewer seats than their fractional ranking among state populations would warrant). This chapter explores whether it is possible to design an apportionment method that avoids all unwanted paradoxes and quota violations. We also discuss various criteria that can be used to compare the apportionments produced by different methods. The chapter concludes with a brief discussion of redistricting, the process by which congressional districts are configured to align with the apportioned number of representatives.
