Webster Plus One: Solving the 'Impossible' Apportionment Debate

Abstract

Apportionment issues inevitably arise decennially. Consistent with historical trends, the debates concerning the upcoming 2010 apportionment have already begun to intensify. Deciding which apportionment method to use has generated intense debates among some of the most prominent figures in the Nation's history. Most scholars believe that there is constitutional tension between two fundamental apportionment constraints: apportioning proportionally and representatively. It has been universally accepted that it is "impossible to satisfy both criteria." In order to satisfy both criteria, an apportionment method must both, maintain quota, and avoid paradoxes. I postulate a new method, the "Webster Plus One" approach, that stands to settle the apportionment method debate by guaranteeing proportional and representative apportionment, while simultaneously maintaining quota and avoiding paradoxes. Because this method finally ensures a Constitutional apportionment, it should be implemented by Congress prior to the 2010 reapportionment.