The Huntington–Hill method, also known as the Method of Equal Proportions, used starting with the 1940 Census, ensures the smallest percentage difference in the sizes of U.S. Congressional districts among the states by first assigning to each state its Constitutionally mandated at least one Representative and then ranking the states according to the geometric mean between the current population of their Congressional districts and what it would be with one more Representative, with the next Representative going to the highest-ranked state, and finally repeating the process until the desired number of Congressional seats has been apportioned among the states.

The following data come from the U.S. Census Bureau and were released on Monday ; the state receiving the next Representative is highlighted.

This simulation also estimates the apportionment if Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia were states, and the number of Representatives were permanently increased by 2; just disregard the last two rows to get the 435-representative estimate. It can also be set to see how the representatives would be reapportioned based on the estimated populations as of Friday .

Now you can try another divisor method, including the one proposed by U.S. Senator Daniel Webster in 1832 and used for the Censuses of 1840, 1910, and 1930 (the non-divisor Hamilton method, first proposed by Alexander Hamilton and not shown here, being used from 1850 through 1900 before the apportionment paradoxes became seen as more than flukes, and the 1920s reapportionment not done due to Congressional dispute about enlarging the House); the Jefferson method used from 1790 through 1830; the method proposed by John Quincy Adams but never used; three other interesting methods of apportionment used in other parts of the world for party-list apportionment following elections but never proposed for the U.S. House of Representatives; and one extra.

As mentioned before, the Huntington–Hill divisor for a state with n Representatives apportioned is √((n+1)n), the geometric mean of n and n+1; the Adams method uses just n, the Jefferson method uses just n+1, the Webster method uses their arithmetic mean (n+½), and the Dean method uses their harmonic mean, which equals their product divided by their arithmetic mean: 2/(1/n+1/(n+1))=(n+1)n/(n+½). The Quadratic method uses their quadratic mean, a.k.a. root-mean-square, which turns out to be a hybrid of the Webster and Huntington–Hill methods: √(½(n²+(n+1)²))=√(n²+n+½). Adams and Huntington–Hill require each state to receive one Representative to start, while the others may need special-case logic to ensure compliance with the Constitution, although in practice, no state has ever had a low-enough population to require a special case.

Allocate more seats: | | | Method:
The Selected Method in the 2020 U.S. Census
STATEREPPOPULATIONNPRIORITYSTATEREPPOPULATIONNPRIORITY
CA5239576757127984993KY6450934213188586
TX3829183290120635702OR6424150012999193
FL2821570527115252666OK5396351612802629
NY2620215751114294695CT5360829812551452
PA171301184419200763UT4327525212315953
IL171282273919067046IA4319240612257372
OH151180884818350116NV4310846212198015
GA141072527417583914AR4301375612131047
NC141045394817392058MS4296391412095804
MI131008444217130777KS4294086512079506
NJ12929449316572199NM3212022011499222
VA11865454216119685NE3196333311388286
WA10771594615455998ID2184137711302050
AZ9715892315062123WV2179504511269288
MA9703346914973414HI2146013711032473
TN9691689714890985NH213790891975163
IN9679028014801453ME213635821964198
MD8618527814373652RI210981631776519
MO8616028114355976MT210854071767499
WI8589747314170143DE19908371700628
CO8578217114088612SD18877701627748
MN8570975214037404ND17797021551333
SC7512471213623719AK17360811520488
AL7503005313556785VT16435031455025
LA6466146813296156WY15777191408509
PR0328587412323464DC06915331488988
ALL 50 STATES435331108434506622169