3 datasets found
  1. H

    Replication Data for: The Malapportionment of the House of Representatives:...

    • dataverse.harvard.edu
    Updated Mar 14, 2022
    Share
    FacebookFacebook
    TwitterTwitter
    Email
    Click to copy link
    Link copied
    Close
    Cite
    Ruoxi Li (2022). Replication Data for: The Malapportionment of the House of Representatives: 1940-2020 [Dataset]. http://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/43ZSGA
    Explore at:
    CroissantCroissant is a format for machine-learning datasets. Learn more about this at mlcommons.org/croissant.
    Dataset updated
    Mar 14, 2022
    Dataset provided by
    Harvard Dataverse
    Authors
    Ruoxi Li
    License

    CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedicationhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
    License information was derived automatically

    Description

    In the latest round of House apportionment following the 2020 Census, the state of New York lost a seat by an extremely small margin: if a mere 89 people were added to the state’s 20 million population, it would have kept the seat. Political observers pointed to the Census’s tendency to undercount minority and immigrant populations as the primary culprit. However, New York’s seat loss is as much as an issue of apportionment as it is of counting: the current apportionment method used by the federal government, Huntington-Hill’s method, is biased against the more populous states such as New York. If an alternative apportionment method were used, such as Webster’s method, New York would also have kept the seat. This article discusses four historical apportionment methods – Hamilton’s method, Huntington-Hill’s method, Jefferson’s method, and Webster’s method. These methods are then evaluated against three criteria of within-quota, consistency, and unbiasedness. The article proceeds to show that Huntington-Hill’s method has produced biased apportionment results in eight out of nine apportionments since its official adoption in 1941. It concludes with the recommendation of replacing the current apportionment method with the only unbiased divisor method: Webster’s method.

  2. m

    US Congressional Representatives

    • maconinsights.maconbibb.us
    • maconinsights.com
    • +4more
    Updated Jan 9, 2018
    Share
    FacebookFacebook
    TwitterTwitter
    Email
    Click to copy link
    Link copied
    Close
    Cite
    Macon-Bibb County Government (2018). US Congressional Representatives [Dataset]. https://maconinsights.maconbibb.us/content/us-congressional-representatives/about
    Explore at:
    Dataset updated
    Jan 9, 2018
    Dataset authored and provided by
    Macon-Bibb County Government
    Area covered
    Description

    Us House Congressional Representatives serving Macon-Bibb County.

    Congressional districts are the 435 areas from which members are elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. After the apportionment of congressional seats among the states, which is based on decennial census population counts, each state with multiple seats is responsible for establishing congressional districts for the purpose of electing representatives. Each congressional district is to be as equal in population to all other congressional districts in a state as practicable. The boundaries and numbers shown for the congressional districts are those specified in the state laws or court orders establishing the districts within each state.

    Congressional districts for the 108th through 112th sessions were established by the states based on the result of the 2000 Census. Congressional districts for the 113th through 115th sessions were established by the states based on the result of the 2010 Census. Boundaries are effective until January of odd number years (for example, January 2015, January 2017, etc.), unless a state initiative or court ordered redistricting requires a change. All states established new congressional districts in 2011-2012, with the exception of the seven single member states (Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming).

    For the states that have more than one representative, the Census Bureau requested a copy of the state laws or applicable court order(s) for each state from each secretary of state and each 2010 Redistricting Data Program state liaison requesting a copy of the state laws and/or applicable court order(s) for each state. Additionally, the states were asked to furnish their newly established congressional district boundaries and numbers by means of geographic equivalency files. States submitted equivalency files since most redistricting was based on whole census blocks. Kentucky was the only state where congressional district boundaries split some of the 2010 Census tabulation blocks. For further information on these blocks, please see the user-note at the bottom of the tables for this state.

    The Census Bureau entered this information into its geographic database and produced tabulation block equivalency files that depicted the newly defined congressional district boundaries. Each state liaison was furnished with their file and requested to review, submit corrections, and certify the accuracy of the boundaries.

  3. a

    Alberta report (final) on South Saskatchewan River Basin water-sharing with...

    • open.alberta.ca
    Share
    FacebookFacebook
    TwitterTwitter
    Email
    Click to copy link
    Link copied
    Close
    Cite
    Alberta report (final) on South Saskatchewan River Basin water-sharing with Saskatchewan in 2009 under the Master Agreement on apportionment - Open Government [Dataset]. https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/ssrb-water-sharing-with-saskatchewan-in-2009-under-the-master-agreement-on-apportionment
    Explore at:
    Area covered
    Alberta, Saskatchewan, South Saskatchewan River
    Description

    This report summarizes Alberta's performance in 2009 in meeting the requirements of the Master Agreement on Apportionment for the South Saskatchewan River Basin. This report relies on the data provided in the Prairie Provinces Water Board's annual report for 2009, which contains the official water quantity and quality results for the year.

  4. Not seeing a result you expected?
    Learn how you can add new datasets to our index.

Share
FacebookFacebook
TwitterTwitter
Email
Click to copy link
Link copied
Close
Cite
Ruoxi Li (2022). Replication Data for: The Malapportionment of the House of Representatives: 1940-2020 [Dataset]. http://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/43ZSGA

Replication Data for: The Malapportionment of the House of Representatives: 1940-2020

Explore at:
CroissantCroissant is a format for machine-learning datasets. Learn more about this at mlcommons.org/croissant.
Dataset updated
Mar 14, 2022
Dataset provided by
Harvard Dataverse
Authors
Ruoxi Li
License

CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedicationhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
License information was derived automatically

Description

In the latest round of House apportionment following the 2020 Census, the state of New York lost a seat by an extremely small margin: if a mere 89 people were added to the state’s 20 million population, it would have kept the seat. Political observers pointed to the Census’s tendency to undercount minority and immigrant populations as the primary culprit. However, New York’s seat loss is as much as an issue of apportionment as it is of counting: the current apportionment method used by the federal government, Huntington-Hill’s method, is biased against the more populous states such as New York. If an alternative apportionment method were used, such as Webster’s method, New York would also have kept the seat. This article discusses four historical apportionment methods – Hamilton’s method, Huntington-Hill’s method, Jefferson’s method, and Webster’s method. These methods are then evaluated against three criteria of within-quota, consistency, and unbiasedness. The article proceeds to show that Huntington-Hill’s method has produced biased apportionment results in eight out of nine apportionments since its official adoption in 1941. It concludes with the recommendation of replacing the current apportionment method with the only unbiased divisor method: Webster’s method.

Search
Clear search
Close search
Google apps
Main menu