The Huntington–Hill method, also known as the Method of Equal Proportions, 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 2000 U.S. Census; the state receiving the next Representative is highlighted.

The census figures have been revised since their initial release (and if the actual apportionment were based on the revised figures, NC would lose a Representative to UT), and 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.

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; and 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 2000 U.S. Census
STATEREPPOPULATIONNPRIORITYSTATEREPPOPULATIONNPRIORITY
CA5333871648123950872SC6401201212836921
TX3220851820114744463OK5345065412439981
NY2918976457113418381OR5342139912419294
FL2515982378111301248CT5340556512408098
IL191241929318781766IA5292632412069224
PA191228105418684017MS4284465812011477
OH181135314018027882KS4268841811900999
MI15993844417027541AR4267340011890379
NJ13841435015949844UT3223316911579089
GA13818645315788696NV3199825711412981
NC13804931315691724NM3181904611286260
VA11707851515005266WV3180834411278692
MA10634909714489490NE3171126311210046
IN9608048514299552ID212939531914963
WA9589412114167773ME212749231901507
TN9568928314022931NH212357861873833
MO9559521113956412HI212115371856686
WI8536367513792691RI210483191741273
MD8529648613745181MT19021951637948
AZ8513063213627905DE17836001554089
MN8491947913478597SD17548441533755
LA7446897613160043ND16422001454104
AL7444710013144575AK16269321443308
CO7430126113041451VT16088271430506
KY6404176912857962WY14937821349157
PR0380861012693094DC05720591404507
ALL 50 STATES435280849847505616997