Talk:Alabama paradox

untitled
I'd like to point out that the example is flawed, as the fair share is slightly off for the 69-seat case.

I have fiddled with some numbers in Excel and have come up with another example. I'll be changing the example in the article. LuckyWizard 06:56, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand.
The problem states that the paradox is a result of a larger size but the example shows a result of more seats and not a larger size. Can this be clarified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.184.29 (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you think "larger size" meant the population of the state? It means the number of seats in the legislature.  —Tamfang (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Merger
I am merging this page into Apportionment paradox. Tklalmighty (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

What?
You call that a "discussion", opened and closed at the same time? —Tamfang (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)