Talk:Alabama paradox

Latest comment: 10 years ago by Tamfang in topic Merger

untitled

edit

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)Reply

I don't understand.

edit

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)Reply

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)Reply

Merger

edit
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was merge into Apportionment paradox. -- Tklalmighty (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What?

edit

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