Condorcet winner criterion

In an election, a candidate is called a majority winner or majority-preferred candidate[1][2][3] if more than half of all voters would support them in a one-on-one race against any one of their opponents. Voting systems where a majority winner will always win are said to satisfy the majority-rule principle[4] or majority winner criterion, and are called majoritarian because they extend the principle of majority rule to elections with multiple candidates.

In situations where equal or tied ranks are allowed, a candidate who wins a simple or relative majority—more votes for than against, ignoring abstentions—is called a Condorcet (English: /kɒndɔːrˈs/),[2] beats-all, or tournament winner (by analogy with round-robin tournaments). However, precise terminology on the topic is inconsistent. Surprisingly, an election may not have a beats-all winner: it is possible to have a rock, paper, scissors-style cycle, when multiple candidates defeat each other (Rock < Paper < Scissors < Rock). This is called Condorcet's voting paradox,[5] and is analogous to the counterintuitive intransitive dice phenomenon known in probability.

However, if voters are arranged on a left-right political spectrum and prefer candidates who are more similar to themselves, a majority-rule winner always exists and is the candidate whose ideology is most representative of the electorate, a result known as the median voter theorem.[6] However, if political candidates differ substantially in ways unrelated to left-right ideology or overall competence, this can lead to voting paradoxes.[7][8] Previous research has found cycles to be somewhat rare in real elections, with estimates of their prevalence ranging from 1-10% of races.[9]

Systems that elect majority winners include Ranked Pairs, Schulze's method, and the Tideman alternative method. Methods that do not include instant-runoff voting (often called ranked-choice in the United States), first preference plurality, and the two-round system. Most rated systems, like score voting and highest median, fail the majority winner criterion intentionally (see tyranny of the majority).

  1. ^ Brandl, Florian; Brandt, Felix; Seedig, Hans Georg (2016). "Consistent Probabilistic Social Choice". Econometrica. 84 (5): 1839–1880. arXiv:1503.00694. doi:10.3982/ECTA13337. ISSN 0012-9682.
  2. ^ a b Sen, Amartya (2020). "Majority decision and Condorcet winners". Social Choice and Welfare. 54 (2/3): 211–217. doi:10.1007/s00355-020-01244-4. ISSN 0176-1714. JSTOR 45286016.
  3. ^ Lewyn, Michael (2012), Two Cheers for Instant Runoff Voting (SSRN Scholarly Paper), Rochester, NY, retrieved 2024-04-21{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  4. ^ Lepelley, Dominique; Merlin, Vincent (1998). "Choix social positionnel et principe majoritaire". Annales d'Économie et de Statistique (51): 29–48. doi:10.2307/20076136. ISSN 0769-489X.
  5. ^ Fishburn, Peter C. (1977). "Condorcet Social Choice Functions". SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics. 33 (3): 469–489. doi:10.1137/0133030. ISSN 0036-1399.
  6. ^ Black, Duncan (1948). "On the Rationale of Group Decision-making". The Journal of Political Economy. 56 (1): 23–34. doi:10.1086/256633. JSTOR 1825026. S2CID 153953456.
  7. ^ Alós-Ferrer, Carlos; Granić, Đura-Georg (2015-09-01). "Political space representations with approval data". Electoral Studies. 39: 56–71. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2015.04.003. hdl:1765/111247. The analysis reveals that the underlying political landscapes ... are inherently multidimensional and cannot be reduced to a single left-right dimension, or even to a two-dimensional space.
  8. ^ Black, Duncan; Newing, R.A. (2013-03-09). McLean, Iain S. [in Welsh]; McMillan, Alistair; Monroe, Burt L. (eds.). The Theory of Committees and Elections by Duncan Black and Committee Decisions with Complementary Valuation by Duncan Black and R.A. Newing. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 9789401148603. For instance, if preferences are distributed spatially, there need only be two or more dimensions to the alternative space for cyclic preferences to be almost inevitable
  9. ^ Van Deemen, Adrian (2014-03-01). "On the empirical relevance of Condorcet's paradox". Public Choice. 158 (3): 311–330. doi:10.1007/s11127-013-0133-3. ISSN 1573-7101.

© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search