 | This is the talk page of a redirect that has been merged and now targets the page: • Apportionment paradox Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Apportionment paradox Merged page edit history is maintained in order to preserve attributions. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
untitled
editI'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.
editThe 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
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)
I am merging this page into Apportionment paradox. Tklalmighty (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
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?
editYou call that a "discussion", opened and closed at the same time? —Tamfang (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)