Editing Apportionment paradox (section)

===New states paradox===
{{See also|Coherence (fairness)}}
Given a fixed number of total representatives (as determined by the United States House of Representatives), adding a new state would in theory ''reduce'' the number of representatives for existing states, as under the United States Constitution each state is entitled to at least one representative regardless of its population. Also, even if the number of members in the House of Representatives is increased by the number of Representatives in the new state, a pre-existing state could lose a seat because of how the particular apportionment rules deal with rounding methods. In 1907, when [[Oklahoma]] became a state, it was given a fair share of seats and the total number of seats increased by that number. The House increased from 386 to 391 members. A recomputation of apportionment affected the number of seats because of other states: New York lost a seat while Maine gained one.<ref name=Stein2008/>{{rp|232–233}}<ref name=Caulfield/>

The New States paradox gave rise to the axiom known as [[Coherence (fairness)|coherence]], which says that, whenever an apportionment rule is activated on a subset of the states, with the subset of seats allocated to them, the outcome should be the same as in the grand solution.