BALINSKI, M. L., and H. P. YOUNG. Fair Representation: Meeting the Ideal of One Man, One Vote, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 1982. In the 1970s, Balinski and Young analyzed apportionment methods in depth. Their approach was to postulate the desirable properties of an apportionment method as axioms and to deduce from the axioms which method is best. This book combines an account of the history of apportionment of the U.S. House of Representatives with the results of their research.

ERNST, LAWRENCE R. Apportionment methods for the House of Representatives and the court challenges, Management Science, 40 (1994): 1207-1227. Ernst, who wrote briefs for the government in both the Montana and the Massachusetts cases, reviews the apportionment problem and the arguments in favor of and against each of the divisor methods. The article includes a summary of the arguments used by both sides in the two court cases.

WILLCOX, WALTER F. Methods of apportioning seats in the House of Representatives, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 49 (1954): 685-695. Go to www.jstor.org/stable/2281533

This is an insider’s view of apportionment by a Cornell professor, who computed the apportionments based on the 1900 and 1910 censuses. Willcox was a strong proponent of the Webster method and argues here that the Hill-Huntington method does not reflect the intentions of the framers of the Constitution. He refers to the Hamilton method as the Vinton method. Samuel Vinton was a congressman who, in 1850, reinvented the Hamilton method.

YOUNG, H. PEYTON. Equity, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1994. Chapter 3 of this book covers apportionment and focuses on which apportionment method is the most equitable.