Part of the Politics series |
Electoral systems |
---|
Politics portal |
Arrow's impossibility theorem is a key result in social choice showing that no ranked-choice voting rule[note 1] can produce logically coherent results with more than two candidates. Specifically, any such rule violates independence of irrelevant alternatives: the principle that a choice between and should not depend on the quality of a third, unrelated outcome .[1]
The result is often cited in discussions of election science and voting theory, where is called a spoiler candidate. As a result, Arrow's theorem can be restated as saying that no ranked voting system can eliminate the spoiler effect.[1][2]
The practical consequences of the theorem are debatable, with Arrow himself noting "Most [ranked] systems are not going to work badly all of the time. All I proved is that all can work badly at times."[2][3] However, the susceptibility of different systems varies greatly. Plurality, Borda, and instant-runoff suffer spoiler effects more often than other methods,[4] and even in situations where spoiler effects are not necessary,[5][6] as they can elect candidates who would have lost in a straight majority vote. Majority-choice methods uniquely minimize the effect of spoilers on election results, limiting them to rare[7][8] situations known as cyclic ties.[5]
While originally overlooked, a large class of systems called rated methods are not affected by Arrow's theorem or IIA failures.[2][9][10] Arrow initially asserted the information provided by these systems was meaningless and therefore could not prevent his paradox;[11] however, he would later recognize this as a mistake,[2] describing score voting as "probably the best" way to avoid his theorem.[2][12][10]
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the help page).
:3
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).Now there's another possible way of thinking about it, which is not included in my theorem. But we have some idea how strongly people feel. In other words, you might do something like saying each voter does not just give a ranking. But says, this is good. And this is not good[...] So this gives more information than simply what I have asked for.
Candidates C and D spoiled the election for B ... With them in the running, A won, whereas without them in the running, B would have won. ... Instant runoff voting ... does not do away with the spoiler problem entirely, although it ... makes it less likely
IRV is subject to something called the "center squeeze." A popular moderate can receive relatively few first-place votes through no fault of her own but because of vote splitting from candidates to the right and left. [...] Approval voting thus appears to solve the problem of vote splitting simply and elegantly. [...] Range voting solves the problems of spoilers and vote splitting
In the present stage of the discussion on the problem of social choice, it should be common knowledge that the General Impossibility Theorem holds because only the ordinal preferences is or can be taken into account. If the intensity of preference or cardinal utility can be known or is reflected in social choice, the paradox of social choice can be solved.
:5
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).Dr. Arrow: Well, I'm a little inclined to think that score systems where you categorize in maybe three or four classes probably (in spite of what I said about manipulation) is probably the best.
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search