You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The '''[[Alabama]] Paradox''' refers to the pathologicial 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.
For example:
{|
|-
! Party !! Votes
|-
| A || 56.7%
|-
| B || 38.5%
|-
| C || 4.2%
|-
| D || 0.6%
|}
With 323 seats, the Hamilton method gives:
{|
|-
! Party !! Quotas !! Seats
|-
| A || 183.141 || 183
|-
| B || 124.355 || 124
|-
| C || 13.566 || '''14'''
|-
| D || 1.938 || 2
|}
But with 324 seats:
{|
|-
! Party !! Quotas !! Seats
|-
| A || 183.708 || 184
|-
| B || 124.740 || 125
|-
| C || 13.608 || '''13'''
|-
| D || 1.944 || 2
|}
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.