Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In social choice theory, Condorcet's voting paradox is a fundamental discovery by the Marquis de Condorcet that majority rule is inherently self-contradictory.The result implies that it is logically impossible for any voting system to guarantee that a winner will have support from a majority of voters; for example, there can be rock-paper-scissors scenarios where a majority of voters will ...
Example Condorcet method voting ballot. Blank votes are equivalent to ranking that candidate last. A Condorcet method (English: / k ɒ n d ɔːr ˈ s eɪ /; French: [kɔ̃dɔʁsɛ]) is an election method that elects the candidate who wins a majority of the vote in every head-to-head election against each of the other candidates, whenever there is such a candidate.
A Condorcet winner may not necessarily always exist in a given electorate: 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, [6] and is analogous to the counterintuitive intransitive dice phenomenon known in ...
People are sick of being forced to vote for the "lesser evil." A new voting method may fix the problem. ... Jean-Charles de Borda and Nicolas de Condorcet, pointed out some of plurality's serious ...
The authors showed that limiting any method to elections with no Condorcet winner (choosing the Condorcet winner when there was one) would never increase its susceptibility to tactical voting. They reported that the 'Condorcet-Hare' system which uses IRV as a tie-break for elections not resolved by the Condorcet criterion was as resistant to ...
A Condorcet winner may not necessarily always exist in a given electorate: 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, [6] and is analogous to the counterintuitive intransitive dice phenomenon known in ...
However, Arrow's theorem is substantially broader, and can be applied to methods of social decision-making other than voting. It therefore generalizes Condorcet's voting paradox, and shows similar problems exist for every collective decision-making procedure based on relative comparisons. [1]
[16] [17] A summary of 37 individual studies, covering a total of 265 real-world elections, large and small, found 25 instances of a Condorcet paradox for a total likelihood of 9.4%. [ 17 ] : 325 While examples of the paradox seem to occur often in small settings like parliaments, very few examples have been found in larger groups (electorates ...