the reapportionment that never was

[jimrtex]

Using this:

http://www.demographia.com/db-state1900.htm

and this:

http://www.cut-the-knot.org/Curriculum/SocialScience/ApportionmentApplet.shtml

and fiddling with the "modified divisor" until it gave me 435 seats, I came up with the following:

California +3
Michigan +2
Ohio +2
Connecticut +1
New Jersey +1
New Mexico +1
Texas +1
Washington +1
Indiana -1
Iowa -1
Kansas -1
Kentucky -1
Louisiana -1
Maine -1
Mississippi -1
Nebraska -1
New York -1
Virginia -1
Missouri -2

using the Huntington-Hill method. Now, I'm certainly not going to verify that one seat at a time, so take it with a grain of salt.

Though it was possible that Huntington-Hill would not have been used.  While they were resisting an apportionment at all, there was also an argument over whether Webster's or Huntington-Hill was superior.  Had Webster's method been used, as it had following the 1910 Census, the following apportionment was used:

California +3
Michigan +2
Ohio +2
Connecticut +1
New Jersey +1
North Carolina +1
Texas +1
Washington +1
Indiana -1
Iowa -1
Kansas -1
Kentucky -1
Louisiana -1
Maine -1
Mississippi -1
Nebraska -1
Rhode Island -1
Vermont -1
Missouri -2

Winners under Huntington-Hill were Rhode Island and Vermont, which would have avoided losing a seat, and New Mexico, which would have gained one.

Winners under Webster's were North Carolina, which would gained a seat, and New York and Virginia, which would not have lost a seat.

In 1929, Congress finally passed a law providing for automatic apportionment.  It said that Congress would choose between Webster's and Huntington-Hill, and if they failed to choose, the last method used (Webster's) would prevail.

In 1930, there was no difference in result.  In 1940, the difference was whether Arkansas or Michigan would get the 435th seat.  In 1941, on a party-line vote, except for the Democrats from Michigan, Huntington-Hill was chosen.  Congress has used Huntington-Hill ever since.