Colorado: another nail in the elctral collg coffin

[Angel of Death]

It is generally agreed among academics that the fairest (least size-biased) way of handling fractions is the Webster or Sainte-Laguë method, which works by adjusting the quota such that the sum of the quotients rounded to their closest integer would equal the target total. Applying this to the 2000 presidential election, we get the following:

Alaska
Bush: 2
Gore: 1

Alabama
Bush: 5
Gore: 4

Arkansas
Bush: 3
Gore: 3

Arizona
Bush: 4
Gore: 4

California
Bush: 23
Gore: 29
Nader: 2

Colorado
Bush: 4
Gore: 4

Connecticut
Bush: 3
Gore: 5

District of Columbia
Gore: 3

Delaware
Bush: 1
Gore: 2

Florida
Bush: 13
Gore: 12

Georgia
Bush: 7
Gore: 6

Hawaii
Bush: 2
Gore: 2

Iowa
Bush: 3
Gore: 4

Idaho
Bush: 3
Gore: 1

Illinois
Bush: 10
Gore: 12

Indiana
Bush: 7
Gore: 5

Kansas
Bush: 4
Gore: 2

Kentucky
Bush: 5
Gore: 3

Louisiana
Bush: 5
Gore: 4

Massachusetts
Bush: 4
Gore: 7
Nader: 1

Maryland
Bush: 4
Gore: 6

Maine
Bush: 2
Gore: 2

Michigan
Bush: 9
Gore: 9

Minnesota
Bush: 4
Gore: 5
Nader: 1

Missouri
Bush: 6
Gore: 5

Mississippi
Bush: 4
Gore: 3

Montana
Bush: 2
Gore: 1

North Carolina
Bush: 8
Gore: 6

North Dakota
Bush: 2
Gore: 1

Nebraska
Bush: 3
Gore: 2

New Hampshire
Bush: 2
Gore: 2

New Jersey
Bush: 6
Gore: 9

New Mexico
Bush: 2
Gore: 3

Nevada
Bush: 2
Gore: 2

New York
Bush: 12
Gore: 20
Nader: 1

Ohio
Bush: 10
Gore: 10
Nader: 1

Oklahoma
Bush: 5
Gore: 3

Oregon
Bush: 3
Gore: 4

Pennsylvania
Bush: 11
Gore: 12

Rhode Island
Bush: 1
Gore: 3

South Carolina
Bush: 5
Gore: 3

South Dakota
Bush: 2
Gore: 1

Tennessee
Bush: 6
Gore: 5

Texas
Bush: 19
Gore: 12
Nader: 1

Utah
Bush: 4
Gore: 1

Virginia
Bush: 7
Gore: 6

Vermont
Bush: 1
Gore: 2

Washington
Bush: 5
Gore: 6

Wisconsin
Bush: 5
Gore: 6

West Virginia
Bush: 3
Gore: 2

Wyoming
Bush: 2
Gore: 1

Total: 538
Bush: 265
Gore: 266
Nader: 7

[Angel of Death]

It is perhaps noteworthy enough to mention that the current congressional apportionment is also the exact result if it was done by Webster even without enforcing a minimal 1 seat per state.

[Angel of Death]

In other words, Huntington-Hill (the currently used method) is biased in favor of smaller states.

[Angel of Death]

In other words, Huntington-Hill (the currently used method) is biased in favor of smaller states.

In other other words, it provides an exquisite balance between the principle that States should be proportionately represented, and the principle that similar-sized groups of people should elect a representative.

I disagree; the latter principle is supposed to have been applied through the existence of the Senate. Anyway, the difference in practice can hardly be called mind-shattering.

[Angel of Death]

Case in point: No difference between Webster and Huntington-Hill with 1990 as well.

[Angel of Death]

In other words, Huntington-Hill (the currently used method) is biased in favor of smaller states.

In other other words, it provides an exquisite balance between the principle that States should be proportionately represented, and the principle that similar-sized groups of people should elect a representative.

I disagree; the latter principle is supposed to have been applied through the existence of the Senate. Anyway, the difference in practice can hardly be called mind-shattering.

I think the words "States should be proportionately represented" put me on the wrong track there and that my response to it above should be discarded. Anyway, Webster can be succinctly rationalized in the following way: What quota you use doesn't matter per se, as long as in the end it all adds up if the same value is used constantly. The original quota itself only works if you would have been allowed to work with fractions (as it would by definition) and shouldn't in any way be considered "sacred" beyond that.

Case in point: No difference between Webster and Huntington-Hill with 1990 as well.

Are you sure that Oklahoma would not have lost their 6th representative and Massachusetts have kept their 11th if Webster had been used?  See footnote 13 in DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE v. MONTANA, 503 U.S. 442 (1992).

I'm using the values from http://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/apportionment/table-a.pdf

[Angel of Death]

Good call. Apparently, the program I used couldn't handle close calls.