IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/spr/stcchp/978-3-030-48598-6_5.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

Analyzing the Practical Relevance of the Condorcet Loser Paradox and the Agenda Contraction Paradox

In: Evaluating Voting Systems with Probability Models

Author

Listed:
  • Felix Brandt

    (Technische Universität München)

  • Christian Geist

    (Technische Universität München)

  • Martin Strobel

    (National University of Singapore)

Abstract

A large part of the social choice literature studies voting paradoxes in which seemingly mild properties are violated by common voting rules. In this chapter, we investigate the likelihood of the Condorcet Loser Paradox (CLP) and the Agenda Contraction Paradox (ACP) using Ehrhart theory, computer simulations, and empirical data. We present the first analytical results for the CLP on four alternatives and show that our experimental results, which go well beyond four alternatives, are in almost perfect congruence with the analytical results. It turns out that the CLP—which is often cited as a major flaw of some Condorcet extensions such as Dodgson’s rule, Young’s rule, and MaxiMin—is of no practical relevance. The ACP, on the other hand, frequently occurs under various distributional assumptions about the voters’ preferences. The extent to which it is real threat, however, strongly depends on the voting rule, the underlying distribution of preferences, and, somewhat surprisingly, the parity of the number of voters.

Suggested Citation

  • Felix Brandt & Christian Geist & Martin Strobel, 2021. "Analyzing the Practical Relevance of the Condorcet Loser Paradox and the Agenda Contraction Paradox," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Mostapha Diss & Vincent Merlin (ed.), Evaluating Voting Systems with Probability Models, pages 97-115, Springer.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:stcchp:978-3-030-48598-6_5
    DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-48598-6_5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:stcchp:978-3-030-48598-6_5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.