Alabama paradox: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
imported>Thorvelden No edit summary |
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) (wikitable, add cat) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
For example: |
For example: |
||
{| class="wikitable" |
|||
{| |
|||
|- |
|- |
||
! Party !! Votes |
! Party !! Votes |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
With 323 seats, the Hamilton method gives: |
With 323 seats, the Hamilton method gives: |
||
{| class="wikitable" |
|||
{| |
|||
|- |
|- |
||
! Party !! Quotas !! Seats |
! Party !! Quotas !! Seats |
||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
But with 324 seats: |
But with 324 seats: |
||
{| class="wikitable" |
|||
{| |
|||
|- |
|- |
||
! Party !! Quotas !! Seats |
! Party !! Quotas !! Seats |
||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
The Alabama Paradox is named after the 1880 observation by U.S. census clerk C.W. Seaton that the state of Alabama would lose one of its 8 seats in the House of Representatives if the size of the House were increased from 299 to 300. |
The Alabama Paradox is named after the 1880 observation by U.S. census clerk C.W. Seaton that the state of Alabama would lose one of its 8 seats in the House of Representatives if the size of the House were increased from 299 to 300. |
||
[[Category:Election scenarios]] |
|||