Massachusetts 1783085 3.61 10.84 10 11 0.84
Connecticut 622700 1.26 3.78 3 4 0.78
West Virginia 618457 1.25 3.76 3 4 0.76
Nebraska 452402 0.92 2.75 2 3 0.75
Minnesota 780773 1.58 4.74 4 5 0.74
Louisiana 939946 1.90 5.71 5 6 0.71
Illinois 3077871 6.23 18.70 18 19 0.70
Maryland 934943 1.89 5.68 5 6 0.68
Rhode Island 276531 0.56 1.68 1 2 0.68
Te x as 1591749 3. 2 2 9.67 9 10 0 .67
Alabama 1262505 2.56 7.67 7 7 0.67Those above charts are only half of two, and Seaton had to draw up
seventy-five. One can only marvel at the tenacity of Seaton; in those
days, in order to crunch the numbers, you really had to crunch the num-
bers without technological assistance, although Seaton may well have
had other members of the U.S. Census Office assist him with the com-
putation. Not only that, but one also has to feel sorry for Seaton, who
would have been much better served had he been a mathematician or a
social scientist. A major discovery like this should be named Seaton’s
paradox, but that’s not what happened. At least he could feel the thrill of
discovery.
The paradox can also be seen in this example.State House Size 323 House Size 324
Fraction Quota Number Quota Number
of pop. of reps of Reps
A 56.7 183.14 183 183.71 184
B 38.5 124.36 124 124.74 125
C 4.2 13.57 14 13.61 13
D 0.6 1.93 2 1.94 2The Population Paradox
Other defects would appear in the Hamilton method. In 1900, Virginia
lost a seat to Maine in the House of Representatives despite the fact that
Virginia’s population was growing faster than Maine’s.
Here’s a simple example. Suppose that a state has three districts, the
state’s representative body has twenty-five members, and the districts are
allocated representatives by the Hamilton method.
The Smoke- Filled Rooms 231