Wrote in a different H, my bad.
BTW, fixing the desired average at P/435, determining, then calculate v as you did and round each state to nearest, you end up with only 432 representatives. Still, it does give a good first approximation to the result of Huntington-Hill.
That (432 representatives) is a feature. Imagine for a moment that North Carolina qualified for its 13th representative on its own merit, that is:
(pnc/12)/(pusa/435) > (pusa/435)/(pnc/13)
or
pnc > √(13*12) * (pusa/435)
rather than on the relative lack of merit of Utah and other States. Then, why if a 1000 people moved from North Carolina to South Carolina, why should Utah gain representation? Just because North Carolina is further from 13/435 of the population, does not make Utah closer to 4/435 of the population.
Note that for ordinary distributions of State populations, more than the nominal number of representatives would be apportioned. Currently, there are a rather large number of States with a population equivalent to less than (n + 1/2) representatives, than that are half way to the next representative. Unless there is some effect where State populations are quantized such that populations tend to be separated by multiples of 1/435 of the US population, there will tend to be more balance than at present.
BTW, my own preferred system for determining the quota ∛P², has its own oddities. In theory, with the 2008 pop. est. that would give 672 Representatives (∛P rounded to nearest integer), but it ends up giving only 670.
Also if Puerto Rico became a state, that would affect the population only enough to bring the target up 675, while Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington would each lose a Representative while Puerto Rico gained 9, bringing the House to only 671.