Introduction. The apportionment for this decade has now been made by Congress, and a bill has been passed which will automatically provide for reapportionment in all subsequent decades. Under this law, the size of the House will remain 435, and the method of computation will remain the method of major fractions as used in 1911 unless Congress takes the initiative in making a change. It may, however, be a matter of interest to put on record a brief description of the principal “methods” which were under discussion in the recent congressional debates. No knowledge of mathematics is required in order to understand the purpose and result of each of these methods.

The constitutional requirement. The constitutional requirement reads as follows: “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed; …. but each state shall have at least one representative.” Hence, in a theoretically perfect apportionment, the ratio of representation in any state would be exactly equal to the ratio of representation in every other state. In practice, however, perfect equality cannot be secured, on account of fractions. Hence, in the practical problem of apportioning any given number of representatives among the several states, the only way in which the constitutional requirement can be met is by making the unavoidable inequalities between the states as small as possible.