• Posts
  • RSS
  • ◂◂RSS
  • Contact

  • Why Huntington-Hill?

    October 24th, 2020
    math, politics  [html]
    The US House of Representatives uses the Huntington-Hill method to figure out how many representatives each state should have. First you give each state one representative, because even the smallest state is guaranteed one, and then you assign the remaining spots, one at a time, to whichever state has the highest "priority". Priority being ratio of its population to the geometric mean of the number of seats it currently holds and the number it would hold if it received this extra seat:

    Ps = state population
    Rs = state reps
    
          Ps
    ---------------
    sqrt(Rs*(Rs+1))
    

    Where does this come from? I had a shot at deriving it, and it actually makes a lot of sense. First, we restate the problem has one of error minimization. At every stage, we want to assign the next seat wherever it would most minimize representational inaccuracy. Current error is, summed over all states:

    Pt = total population
    Rt = total (target) reps
    
    | Pt   Ps |
    | -- - -- | * Ps
    | Rt   Rs |
    

    For each state we might give a seat to, the effect that would have on total error is:

    | Pt    Ps  |        | Pt   Ps |
    | -- - ---- | * Ps - | -- - -- | * Ps
    | Rt   Rs+1 |        | Rt   Rs |
    

    We would like to identify the state that minimizes this quantity. Since we are adding representatives one by one, Pt/Rt will always be greater than Ps/Rs [1] and we can remove the absolute value and distribute the Ps.

    PtPs   PsPs   PtPs   PsPs
    ---- - ---- - ---- + ----
     Rt    Rs+1    Rt     Rs
    

    Cancel the PtPs/Rt and we have:

    PsPs   PsPs
    ---- - ----
     Rs    Rs+1
    

    Combine the two fractions and cancel again:

      PsPs
    ---------
    Rs*(Rs+1)
    

    Since we're trying to identify the state that minimizes the quantity, we can instead identify the state that minimizes its square root:

          Ps
    ---------------
    sqrt(Rs*(Rs+1))
    

    Which is in the prioritization of Huntington-Hill.

    I initially tried to derive this from squared error, which did not work and ended up with an enormous amount of scribbles on paper.


    [1] This is not quite true, as we get to assigning the very last representatives, but I think it still works?

    Comment via: facebook, lesswrong

    Recent posts on blogs I like:

    How to extend pockets

    Make women's pants pockets big enough to hold a phone properly The post How to extend pockets appeared first on Otherwise.

    via Otherwise May 19, 2022

    Buckingham Palace

    I love England. Especially because of the big castle called Buckingham Palace. I got to see the outside there, but my mom showed me some pictures of the inside. I love it there. But the outside doesn't look very fancy to me. But I never knew why those …

    via Anna Wise's Blog Posts April 25, 2022

    What is causality to an evidential decision theorist?

    (Subsumed by: Timeless Decision Theory, EDT=CDT) People sometimes object to evidential decision theory by saying: “It seems like the distinction between correlation and causation is really important to making good decisions in practice. So how can a theor…

    via The sideways view April 17, 2022

    more     (via openring)


  • Posts
  • RSS
  • ◂◂RSS
  • Contact