| Display title | Alabama paradox |
| Default sort key | Alabama paradox |
| Page length (in bytes) | 1,223 |
| Namespace ID | 0 |
| Page ID | 23 |
| Page content language | en - English |
| Page content model | wikitext |
| Indexing by robots | Allowed |
| Number of redirects to this page | 0 |
| Counted as a content page | Yes |
| Number of subpages of this page | 0 (0 redirects; 0 non-redirects) |
| Page views in the past month | 24 |
| Edit | Allow all users (infinite) |
| Move | Allow all users (infinite) |
| Delete | Allow all users (infinite) |
| Page creator | imported>DanBishop |
| Date of page creation | 20:40, 26 March 2005 |
| Latest editor | Dr. Edmonds (talk | contribs) |
| Date of latest edit | 20:56, 22 March 2020 |
| Total number of edits | 9 |
| Recent number of edits (within past 180 days) | 0 |
| Recent number of distinct authors | 0 |
| Transcluded template (1) | Template used on this page:
|
Description | Content |
Article description: (description)
This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements. | The Alabama Paradox refers to the pathological scenario of the Hamilton method in which an increase in the total number of seats in the legislature would cause an electoral district or political party to lose a seat. It is an example of House monotonicity failure and can be understood through the Balinski–Young theorem. |
