IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v40y1994i10p1207-1227.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Appointment Methods for the House of Representatives and the Court Challenges

Author

Listed:
  • Lawrence R. Ernst

    (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Office of Compensation and Working Conditions, Research Group, 2 Mass. Ave., N.E., Room 3160, Washington, D.C. 20212)

Abstract

Four different methods have been used to apportion the seats in the United States House of Representatives among the states following the decennial census. The current method, the method of equal proportions, has been used for each census since 1940. In 1991, for the first time in U.S. history, the constitutionality of an apportionment method was challenged in court, by Montana and Massachusetts in separate cases. Montana proposed two methods as alternatives to equal proportions, the methods of harmonic means and smallest divisors, while Massachusetts proposed the method of major fractions. On March 31, 1992, in a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of equal proportions. This author wrote the declarations on the mathematical and statistical issues used by the defense in these cases. The declarations in the Massachusetts case contain several new theoretical and empirical results. This paper discusses the technical issues in these cases together with a brief history of the apportionment problem.

Suggested Citation

  • Lawrence R. Ernst, 1994. "Appointment Methods for the House of Representatives and the Court Challenges," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(10), pages 1207-1227, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:40:y:1994:i:10:p:1207-1227
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.40.10.1207
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.40.10.1207
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.40.10.1207?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sebastian Maier & Petur Zachariassen & Martin Zachariasen, 2010. "Divisor-Based Biproportional Apportionment in Electoral Systems: A Real-Life Benchmark Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(2), pages 373-387, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:40:y:1994:i:10:p:1207-1227. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.