“Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included
within this union, according to their respective numbers, …. The actual Enumeration shall be made within
three years after the first meeting
of the Congress of the
of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed
one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative;”
|
CT |
236,841 |
|
DE |
55,540 |
|
GA |
70,835 |
|
KY |
68,705 |
|
MA |
475,327 |
|
MD |
278,514 |
|
NC |
353,523 |
|
NH |
141,822 |
|
NJ |
179,570 |
|
NY |
331,589 |
|
PA |
432,879 |
|
RI |
68,446 |
|
SC |
206,236 |
|
VA |
630,560 |
|
VT |
85,533 |
Note: Remember that these numbers do NOT necessarily represent the number of people in each state. Due to the 3/5-rule slave states had actually a larger population than the number in the table indicates. The first suggestion as to how to approach this problem came from one of you was to divide each state’s apportionment population by 30,000. E.g., NH’s apportionment population in 1790 is 141,822. Dividing by 30,000 gives 141,822/30,000 = 4.7274. To make sure NH does NOT get “more than one for every 30,000” we round DOWN the quotient 4.7274 to 4. With 4 representatives the average for NH is 141,822/4 = 35,455.5, which is allowable under the Constitution. If we carry out this calculation for each of the 15 states we get:
|
|
|
÷30,000 |
rounded
down |
|
CT |
236,841 |
7.8947 |
7 |
|
DE |
55,540 |
1.851333 |
1 |
|
GA |
70,835 |
2.361167 |
2 |
|
KY |
68,705 |
2.290167 |
2 |
|
MA |
475,327 |
15.84423 |
15 |
|
MD |
278,514 |
9.2838 |
9 |
|
NC |
353,523 |
11.7841 |
11 |
|
NH |
141,822 |
4.7274 |
4 |
|
NJ |
179,570 |
5.985667 |
5 |
|
NY |
331,589 |
11.05297 |
11 |
|
PA |
432,879 |
14.4293 |
14 |
|
RI |
68,446 |
2.281533 |
2 |
|
SC |
206,236 |
6.874533 |
6 |
|
VA |
630,560 |
21.01867 |
21 |
|
VT |
85,533 |
2.8511 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
112 |
Thus this process apportions a House with 112 seats. Fortunately (if you’re inclined to think of mathematics as being fun) or unfortunately (if ….) the story doesn’t end here because this method causes big problems. (we’ll get to the problems in a bit.) Let’s start over and ask ourselves the following question: How should we apportion a House with 112seats given the apportionment populations of the 1790 census? A suggestion from on of you was to divide the total population of all states, which is 3,615,920, by 112. This quotient is 3,615,920/112 = 32,285 and it tells us that ideally each representative represents 32285. Now given NH’s apportionment population of 141,822 we divide that number by 32,285 and get 4.3928. Thus NH has 4.3928 ideal districts. If we carry out this process for all the states we get:
|
CT |
236,841 |
7.33595 |
|
DE |
55,540 |
1.7203 |
|
GA |
70,835 |
2.19405 |
|
KY |
68,705 |
2.12808 |
|
MA |
475,327 |
14.7228 |
|
MD |
278,514 |
8.62673 |
|
NC |
353,523 |
10.9501 |
|
NH |
141,822 |
4.39281 |
|
NJ |
179,570 |
5.56203 |
|
NY |
331,589 |
10.2707 |
|
PA |
432,879 |
13.4081 |
|
RI |
68,446 |
2.12006 |
|
SC |
206,236 |
6.38798 |
|
VA |
630,560 |
19.5311 |
|
VT |
85,533 |
2.64931 |
|
Total |
3,615,920 |
112 |
Of course we can only apportion integer number of representatives. One we to deal with this problem is to apportion each state at first its integer part of ideal number of districts.
|
CT |
236,841 |
7.33595 |
7 |
|
DE |
55,540 |
1.7203 |
1 |
|
GA |
70,835 |
2.19405 |
2 |
|
KY |
68,705 |
2.12808 |
2 |
|
MA |
475,327 |
14.7228 |