IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v158y2014i3p311-330.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the empirical relevance of Condorcet’s paradox

Author

Listed:
  • Adrian Deemen

    ()

Abstract

Condorcet’s paradox occurs when there is no alternative that beats every other alternative by majority. The paradox may pose real problems to democratic decision making such as decision deadlocks and democratic paralysis. However, its relevance has been discussed again and again since the celebrated works of Arrow (Social choice and individual values, 1963 ) and Black (The theory of committees and elections, 1958 ). The discussion varies from one extreme to the other: from very relevant to practically irrelevant. This paper tries to bring more clarity to the discussion by reviewing the literature on the empirical relevance of Condorcet’s paradox. Since a definition of the paradox for even numbers of voters and alternatives, and for weak voter preferences is missing in the literature, we first define the paradox clearly and simply. Then, three topics are investigated, namely domain conditions, culture and the likelihood of the paradox, and the empirical detection of the paradox. Domain conditions express regularities in voter-preference profiles that prevent the paradox. Frequent observations of these domain conditions would make Condorcet’s paradox empirically less important. Cultures define probability distributions over the set of voter preferences. Observation of cultures might be a first step to indicate the relevance of the paradox. The empirical detection of the paradox speaks for itself; we will try to identify the number of observations of the paradox so far. The overall conclusion is that the empirical relevance of Condorcet’s paradox is still unsettled. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Suggested Citation

  • Adrian Deemen, 2014. "On the empirical relevance of Condorcet’s paradox," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 311-330, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:158:y:2014:i:3:p:311-330
    DOI: 10.1007/s11127-013-0133-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11127-013-0133-3
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adrian Van Deemen, 1999. "The probability of the paradox of voting for weak preference orderings," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 16(2), pages 171-182.
    2. Miller, Nicholas R., 2007. "In Search of the Uncovered Set," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(1), pages 21-45, January.
    3. van Deemen, Adrian M A & Vergunst, Noel P, 1998. "Empirical Evidence of Paradoxes of Voting in Dutch Elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 97(3), pages 475-490, December.
    4. Inada, Ken-Ichi, 1969. "The Simple Majority Decision Rule," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 37(3), pages 490-506, July.
    5. John Dobra & Gordon Tullock, 1981. "An approach to empirical measures of voting paradoxes," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 193-194, January.
    6. Sen, Amartya & Pattanaik, Prasanta K., 1969. "Necessary and sufficient conditions for rational choice under majority decision," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 1(2), pages 178-202, August.
    7. Owen, G & Shapley, L S, 1989. "Optimal Location of Candidates in Ideological Space," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 18(3), pages 339-356.
    8. Mackie,Gerry, 2003. "Democracy Defended," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521534314, December.
    9. Riker, William H., 1958. "The Paradox of Voting and Congressional Rules for Voting on Amendments," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 52(2), pages 349-366, June.
    10. Regenwetter, Michel & Grofman, Bernard & Marley, A. A. J., 2002. "On the model dependence of majority preference relations reconstructed from ballot or survey data," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 451-466, July.
    11. Enelow,James M. & Hinich,Melvin J., 1984. "The Spatial Theory of Voting," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521275156, December.
    12. Gaertner,Wulf, 2006. "Domain Conditions in Social Choice Theory," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521028745, December.
    13. Kurrild-Klitgaard, Peter, 2001. "An Empirical Example of the Condorcet Paradox of Voting in a Large Electorate," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 107(1-2), pages 135-145, April.
    14. Michael Taylor, 1968. "Graph-theoretic approaches to the theory of social choice," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 35-47, March.
    15. Mackie,Gerry, 2003. "Democracy Defended," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521827089, December.
    16. McKelvey, Richard D, 1979. "General Conditions for Global Intransitivities in Formal Voting Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(5), pages 1085-1112, September.
    17. Browne, Eric C. & Hamm, Keith E., 1996. "Legislative Politics and the Paradox of Voting: Electoral Reform in Fourth Republic France," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(2), pages 165-198, April.
    18. Niemi, Richard G., 1969. "Majority Decision-Making with Partial Unidimensionality," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 63(2), pages 488-497, June.
    19. Klahr, David, 1966. "A Computer Simulation of the Paradox of Voting," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 60(2), pages 384-390, June.
    20. John Dobra, 1983. "An approach to empirical studies of voting paradoxes: An update and extension," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 241-250, January.
    21. DeMeyer, Frank & Plott, Charles R, 1970. "The Probability of a Cyclical Majority," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 38(2), pages 345-354, March.
    22. Michel Regenwetter & A.A.J. Marley & Bernard Grofman, 2003. "General concepts of value restriction and preference majority," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 21(1), pages 149-173, August.
    23. Fiorina, Morris P. & Plott, Charles R., 1978. "Committee Decisions under Majority Rule: An Experimental Study," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 72(2), pages 575-598, June.
    24. Jones, Bradford & Radcliff, Benjamin & Taber, Charles & Timpone, Richard, 1995. "Condorcet Winners and the Paradox of Voting: Probability Calculations for Weak Preference Orders," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 89(1), pages 137-144, March.
    25. Michel Regenwetter & Bernard Grofman, 1998. "Approval Voting, Borda Winners, and Condorcet Winners: Evidence from Seven Elections," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(4), pages 520-533, April.
    26. Toda, Mitsuhiko & Sugiyama, Kozo & Tagawa, Shojiro, 1982. "A method for aggregating ordinal assessments by a majority decision rule," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 227-242, October.
    27. Lepelley, Dominique & Martin, Mathieu, 2001. "Condorcet's paradox for weak preference orderings," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 163-177, March.
    28. Owen, Guillermo, 1990. "Stable outcomes in spatial voting games," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 269-279, June.
    29. McKelvey, Richard D., 1976. "Intransitivities in multidimensional voting models and some implications for agenda control," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 472-482, June.
    30. Norpoth, Helmut, 1979. "The Parties Come to Order! Dimensions of Preferential Choice in the West German Electorate, 1961–1976," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 73(3), pages 724-736, September.
    31. Peter C. Fishburn & John D. C. Little, 1988. "An Experiment in Approval Voting," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(5), pages 555-568, May.
    32. John H. Beck, 1997. "Voting Cycles in Business Curriculum Reform, a Note," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 41(1), pages 83-88, March.
    33. Davis, Otto A & DeGroot, Morris H & Hinich, Melvin J, 1972. "Social Preference Orderings and Majority Rule," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 40(1), pages 147-157, January.
    34. Richard Niemi, 1970. "The occurrence of the paradox of voting in University elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 91-100, March.
    35. Riker, William H., 1980. "Implications from the Disequilibrium of Majority Rule for the Study of Institutions," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 74(2), pages 432-446, June.
    36. Daniel Bochsler, 2010. "The Marquis de Condorcet goes to Bern," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 144(1), pages 119-131, July.
    37. Truchon, M., 1998. "Figure Skating and the Theory of Social Choice," Papers 9814, Laval - Recherche en Politique Economique.
    38. Gehrlein, William V. & Fishburn, Peter C., 1976. "The probability of the paradox of voting: A computable solution," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 14-25, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alexander Karpov, 2019. "On the Number of Group-Separable Preference Profiles," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 501-517, June.
    2. Kurrild-Klitgaard, Peter, 2018. "Trump, Condorcet and Borda: Voting paradoxes in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 29-35.
    3. Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit, 2020. "Axioms for Defeat in Democratic Elections," Papers 2008.08451, arXiv.org.
    4. Matthew Harrison-Trainor, 2020. "An Analysis of Random Elections with Large Numbers of Voters," Papers 2009.02979, arXiv.org.
    5. Kurrild-Klitgaard, Peter, 2016. "The cyclical social choice of primary vs. general election candidates: A note on the US 2016 presidential election," MPRA Paper 69171, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:kap:pubcho:v:158:y:2014:i:3:p:311-330. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.