Apportionment Calculator
Calculate fair representation using different apportionment methods for legislative seats
Population Data
Enter the number of states/districts above and click "Generate Input Fields"
Apportionment Results
Enter population data and select a method to calculate apportionment.
Visual Representation
📊 Historical Apportionment Data
United States House of Representatives
| Year | Method Used | Total Seats | States | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1790-1840 | Jefferson | 105-242 | 15-26 | Favored larger states |
| 1840-1850 | Webster | 223-234 | 26-30 | More balanced approach |
| 1850-1900 | Hamilton | 234-357 | 30-45 | Alabama Paradox discovered |
| 1910-present | Huntington-Hill | 391-435 | 48-50 | Current US method |
Note: Different methods can produce different seat allocations even with the same population data.
⚖️ Method Comparison
Hamilton
Also called Largest Remainder. Simple to calculate but susceptible to paradoxes.
Jefferson
Favors larger states. Used by the US from 1790-1840.
Webster
Neutral between large and small states. Used by the US from 1840-1850.
Huntington-Hill
Current US method. Geometric mean approach minimizes relative differences.
Adams
Favors smaller states. Uses ceiling function for rounding.
Dean
Harmonic mean approach. Tends to be neutral between state sizes.
⚠️ Apportionment Paradoxes
Alabama Paradox
When increasing total seats causes a state to lose a seat. Discovered in 1880 when Alabama would lose a seat if House size increased from 299 to 300.
Population Paradox
When state A grows faster than state B but loses a seat to state B. Occurred in 1900 when Virginia grew faster than Maine but lost a seat to Maine.
New States Paradox
Adding a new state with its fair share of seats can change the apportionment of other states. Happened when Oklahoma joined in 1907.
Note: This calculator provides estimates based on standard apportionment methods. Actual legislative apportionment may involve additional rules or constraints not reflected here.