HAM

•
D

MI
ETHO

D
M
HA
ON

O
MILT
A

H
• H
•
D

ET
HO
OD

MET
N

M
T O
TH

N
ME

O
N

ILT
O
ON

ILT
M I L
H A

M
AM
D •

HA
T H O
E
H

•
T O N

D
L
•

MI

HO
A
 HAM
•

•
D

MI
ETHO

D
M
HA
ON

O
MILT
A

H
• H
•
D
Overview and

ET
HO
OD

MET
N

M
T O
TH

History of the

N
ME

O
N

ILT
O
ON

Hamilton • HAM T

ILT
I L

M
AM
D

HA
T H O
Method E
H

•
ON T

D
L
•

MI

HO
A
 HAM
•

•
D

MI
E T H O

D
M
HA
O N

O
M ILT
A

H
• H
•
D

ET
H O
OD

M ET
N What is Apportionment?

M
T O
TH

• Apportionment is simply a procedure of allocating

N
ME

positions proportionally to groups based on its

O
N
ON

ILT
population size.
T O

ILT
M I L
H A

M
AM
D •

HA
T H O
E
H

•
T O N

D
L
•

MI

HO
A
 HAM
•

•
D

MI
E T H O

D
M
HA
O N

O
The Hamilton MethodM ILT
of Apportionment
A

H
• H
•
D
• Proposed by

ET
Alexander Hamilton in 1791, it was
H O
OD

M ET
implemented because it aimed to fairly allocate seats
ON

M
T
TH

among states in a way that it is directly proportional

N
ME

to their population.

O
• The Method was straightforward and mathematically
N
ON

ILT
T O

ILT
I L
transparent, aligning with the principle that each
M
H A

M
AM
•
state's representation should correspond as closely
D

HA
H O
as possible to its population share.
T
E
H

•
T O N

D
L
•

MI

HO
A
 HAM
•

•
D

MI
E T H O

D
M
HA
O N

O
The Hamilton Method M ILT
of Apportionment
A

H
• H
•
• Hamilton's D

ET
method ensures that each state in the
H O
OD

M E
U.S.T Congress gets several representatives that
ON

M
T
TH

reflect its population size. This is important because

N
ME

it helps all states, big or small, feel fairly treated and

O
included in the decision-making process.
N
ON

ILT
T O

ILT
I L
• It promotes unity by ensuring everyone's voice
M
H A

M
AM
•
matters, especially for smaller states that might
D

HA
H O
otherwise feel overlooked compared to larger ones.
T
E
H

•
T O N

D
L
•

MI

HO
A
 HAM
•

•
D

MI
ETHO

D
M
HA
ON

O
MILT
A

H
• H
•
DHow is the

ET
HO
OD

MET
N

M
T O
TH

Hamilton

N
ME

O
N

ILT
O
ON

Method • HAM T

ILT
I L

M
AM
D

HA
T H O
calculated?
E
H

•
ON T

D
L
•

MI

HO
A
 HAM
•

•
D

MI
E T H O

D
M
HA
O N

O
M
1. The Standard Divisor I L
is Tthe baseline ratio of
A

H
• H
•
D
people per seat.

ET
H O
OD

M E T
ON

M
T
TH

N
ME

2. For each group (e.g., a state or district), divide its

O
population by the Standard Divisor to obtain its N

ILT
O
ON

ILT
M I L
Standard Quota
H A

M
AM
D •

HA
T H O
E
H

•
T O N

D
L
•

MI

HO
A
 HAM
•

•
D

MI
E T H O

D
M
HA
O N

O
M ILT
• The standard quota typically has decimals, a
A

H
• H
•
D
whole number to represent the

ET
number of seats a
HO
OD

M E T
state gets and a fractional portion that could be
ON

M
T
TH

used to adjust allotments.

N
ME

O
3. Assign Seats Based on Whole Number Quotas N
ON

ILT
T O

ILT
M I L
• Example: A quota of 4.76 gives the group 4 seats
H A

M
AM
D •

HA
initially.
T H O
E
H

•
T O N

D
L
•

MI

HO
A
 HAM
•

•
D

MI
E T H O

D
M
HA
O N

O
M IL T
A

H
• H
•
D

ET
H O
OD

M E T
4. Distribute Remaining Seats by Largest Fractional
N

M
TO • If the total seats for distribution is not equal to
Remainders.
TH

N
ME

O
the total amount of seats present, then the quota
N
ON

ILT
T O

ILT
M I L
with the larget fractional portion is to be
H A

M
rounded. AM
D •

HA
T H O
E
H

•
T O N

D
L
•

MI

HO
A
 HAM
•

•
D

MI
ETHO

D
M
HA
ON

O
MILT
A

H
• H
•
D Applying

ET
HO
OD

MET
N

M
T O
TH

Hamilton

N
ME

O
N

ILT
O
ON

Method to Real- T

ILT
M I L
H A

M
AM
D •

HA
T H O
world Oexamples
E
H

•
N T

D
L
•

MI

HO
A
 HAM
•

•
D

MI
ETHO

D
M
HA
ON
• The state of Delaware has three counties: Kent, New Castle, and Sussex. The

O
MILT
Delaware state House of Representatives has 41 members. If Delaware wants to
A

H
• H
•
divide this representation along county lines (which is not required, but let's pretend
D

ET
HO
they do), let's use Hamilton's method to apportion them. The populations of the
OD

MET
counties are as follows (from the 2010 Census):
N

M
T O
TH

Stat Popul Quot Initia

Final

N
ME

e ation a l
Kent 162,310

O
N
ON

New Castle

ILT
O
538,479

ILT
Sussex 197, 145
M I L
H A

M
AM
Total = 897,934

D •

HA
T H O
E
H

•
T O N

D
L
•

MI

HO
A
 HAM
•

•
D

MI
E T H O

D
M
HA
O N

O
M I
1. Get the value of our StandardL T
Divisor, by dividing the Total
A

H
• H
•
Population by the Number of Representatives.
D

ET
H O
OD

M E T
ON

M
T
TH

N
ME

Total Population:

O
Number
897,934 of Representatives:
N
ON

ILT
T O

ILT
41
M I L
H A

M
AM
D •

HA
T H O
E
H

•
T O N

D
L
•

MI

HO
A
 HAM
•

•
D

MI
E T H O

D
M
HA
O N

O
IL T
2. Now we determine each county's quota
M
by dividing the county's
A

H
population by the divisor:
• H
•
D

ET
H O
OD

M E T
ON

M
T
TH

Populat
State Quota

N
ME

ion

O
Kent 162,310 7.41113489

N
ON

ILT
T O

ILT
New Castle
M I L 538,479 24.58715043

H A

M
AM
D •
Sussex 197, 145 9.00171393

HA
T H O
E Total = 897,934
H

•
T O N

D
L
•

MI

HO
A
 HAM
•

•
D

MI
E TH O

D
M
HA
O N

O
3.
IL T
Removing the decimal parts
M
of the quotas
A

H
• H
•
gives:
D

ET
H O
OD

M E T
State
Populatio
Quota Initial Final
ON
n

M
T
TH

Kent 162,310 7.411134897

N
ME

O
24
N
ON

ILT
New Castle 538,479
O
24.58715043
T

ILT
M I L
9
H A

M
AM
Sussex 197, 145 9.00171393
D •

HA
T H
40
O
E
H

•
Total = 897,934
T O N

D
L
•

MI

HO
A
 H AM
•

•
D

MI
E T H O

D
M
HA
O N

O
M ILT
4. We need 41 representatives and this only has 40. The remaining one

H
• H
goes to the county with the largest decimal part, which is New Castle:
•
D

ET
H O
OD

M E T
State
Populatio
Quota Initial Final
ON
n

M
T
TH

Kent 162,310 7.411134897

N
ME

O
24
N
ON

ILT
New Castle 538,479
O
24.58715043
T

ILT
M I L
9
H A

M
AM
Sussex 197, 145
D
9.00171393
•

HA
T H
40
O
E
H

•
Total = 897,934
T O N

D
L
•

MI

HO
A
 H AM
•

•
D

MI
E T H O

D
hadM
HA
4. We need 41 representatives and it onlyN
O

O
M ILT 40. The remaining one

H
• H
goes to the county with the largest decimal part, which is New Castle:
•
D

ET
H O
OD

M E T
State
Populatio
Quota Initial Final
ON
n

M
T
TH

Kent 162,310 7.411134897 7

N
ME

O
24 25
N
ON

ILT
New Castle 538,479
O
24.58715043
T

ILT
M I L
9 9
H A

M
AM
Sussex 197, 145 9.00171393
D •

HA
T H O
40 41
E
H

•
Total =
N
897,934
T O

D
L
•

MI

HO
A
 HAM
•

•
D

MI
ETHO

D
M
HA
ON

O
MILT
A

H
• H
•
D

ET
HO
OD

MET
N Advantages of

M
T O
TH

N
ME

O
Hamilton N

ILT
O
ON

ILT
M I L
H A

M
AM
•
Method D

HA
T H O
E
H

•
T O N

D
L
•

MI

HO
A
 HAM
•

•
D

MI
E T H O

D
M
HA
O N

O
M IL T
A

H
H
1. Effective for presentations.
•
•
D

ET
H O
• Hamilton’s method of apportionment is clear and direct, making
OD

anT
itE
N M easily comprehensible distribution method.

M
T O
TH

1. Logical
• This method follows a step-by-step process, which would help in

N
ME

O
demonstrating allotments of seats on a given population.
N
ON

1. Easy to do

ILT
T O

ILT
M I L
• Using tables and charts can improve the understanding of
H A

M
AM
•
apportionment, an added characteristic is that it involves a short
D

HA
process.
T H O
E
H

•
T O N

D
L
•

MI

HO
A
 HAM
•

•
D

MI
ETHO

D
M
HA
ON

O
MILT
A

H
• H
•
D

ET
HO
OD

MET
N Disdvantages of

M
T O
TH

N
ME

O
Hamilton N

ILT
O
ON

ILT
M I L
H A

M
AM
•
Method D

HA
T H O
E
H

•
T O N

D
L
•

MI

HO
A
 HAM
•

•
D

MI
E T H O

D
M
HA
O N

O
M ILT
A

H
• H
• Paradox of Larger Seats: The Hamilton Method can result in a
•
D

ET
paradox O
H
OD

where the addition of a new seat may alter the

M E T
N distribution of existing seats among parties, leading to

M
T O
TH

counterintuitive results (Blais & Massicotte, 2002).

N
ME

O
• Non-unique Outcomes: The method can produce different
N
ON

ILT
O
seat allocations for the same vote totals, depending on how
T

ILT
M I L
remainders are calculated, which can create inconsistencies
H A

M
AM
(Dumont & Lemaire, 2015).
D •

HA
T H O
E
H

•
T O N

D
L
•

MI

HO
A
 HAM
•

•
D

MI
E T H O

D
M
HA
O N

O
M ILT
A

H
• Incentives for • H
•
D

ET
H O Larger Parties: Larger parties may find
OD

M E
waysT to manipulate the system to enhance their seat
N

M
T O
TH

allocation, particularly in competitive electoral environments

(Katz & Mair, 1995).

N
ME

• Limited Proportionality: While designed for proportional

O
N
ON

representation, the Hamilton Method may not achieve

ILT
T O

ILT
M I L
complete proportionality, especially in elections with
H A

M
AM
•
numerous parties (Gallagher, 1991).
D

HA
T H O
E
H

•
T O N

D
L
•

MI

HO
A
Resource
s:
• Blais, A., &Massicotte, L. (2002). Electoral systems. In D. M. Smith
& J. A. K. Morgan (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems
(pp. 49-81). Oxford University Press.
[Link]
YSTEMS-Handbook_of_Electoral_System_Choice
• Dumont, P., & Lemaire, B. (2015). Apportionment methods: A
comparative analysis. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and
Parties, 25(4), 467-490.
[Link]
methods

• Elklit, J., & Reynolds, A. (2005). A framework for evaluating electoral

systems. Electoral Studies, 24(3), 453-467.
• [Link]
for_the_Systematic_Study_of_Election_Quality
Resource
s:
• Gallagher, M.(1991). Proportionality, Disproportionality and Electoral Systems.
Electoral Studies, 10(1), 33-51.
[Link]
-[Link]

• Katz, R. S., & Mair, P. (1995). Changing Models of Party Organization and Party
Democracy. Party Politics, 1(1), 5-28.
[Link]
• Kenyon, M., & Lippman, D. (2022, July 18). 4.2: Hamilton’s method. Mathematics
LibreTexts.
[Link]
ippman)/04%3A_Apportionment/4.02%3A_Hamiltons_Method?need_sec_link=1&s
ec_link_scene=i
• Mamalat, G. M., & Airth, M. (2023, November 21). Hamilton's Method of
Apportionment | History, Formula & Examples. Study .com.
[Link]
[Link]
• Pérez-Liñán, A. (2007). Electoral systems and party systems: A comparative
perspective. European Journal of Political Research, 46(2), 251-272.