IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2602.04815.html

Winning in the Limit: Average-Case Committee Selection with Many Candidates

Author

Listed:
  • Yifan Lin
  • Shenyu Qin
  • Kangning Wang
  • Lirong Xia

Abstract

We study the committee selection problem in the canonical impartial culture model with a large number of voters and an even larger candidate set. Here, each voter independently reports a uniformly random preference order over the candidates. For a fixed committee size $k$, we ask when a committee can collectively beat every candidate outside the committee by a prescribed majority level $\alpha$. We focus on two natural notions of collective dominance, $\alpha$-winning and $\alpha$-dominating sets, and we identify sharp threshold phenomena for both of them using probabilistic methods, duality arguments, and rounding techniques. We first consider $\alpha$-winning sets. A set $S$ of $k$ candidates is $\alpha$-winning if, for every outside candidate $a \notin S$, at least an $\alpha$-fraction of voters rank some member of $S$ above $a$. We show a sharp threshold at \[ \alpha_{\mathrm{win}}^\star = 1 - \frac{1}{k}. \] Specifically, an $\alpha$-winning set of size $k$ exists with high probability when $\alpha \alpha_{\mathrm{win}}^\star$. We then study the stronger notion of $\alpha$-dominating sets. A set $S$ of $k$ candidates is $\alpha$-dominating if, for every outside candidate $a \notin S$, there exists a single committee member $b \in S$ such that at least an $\alpha$-fraction of voters prefer $b$ to $a$. Here we establish an analogous sharp threshold at \[ \alpha_{\mathrm{dom}}^\star = \frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{2k}. \] As a corollary, our analysis yields an impossibility result for $\alpha$-dominating sets: for every $k$ and every $\alpha > \alpha_{\mathrm{dom}}^\star = 1 / 2 - 1 / (2k)$, there exist preference profiles that admit no $\alpha$-dominating set of size $k$. This corollary improves the best previously known bounds for all $k \geq 2$.

Suggested Citation

  • Yifan Lin & Shenyu Qin & Kangning Wang & Lirong Xia, 2026. "Winning in the Limit: Average-Case Committee Selection with Many Candidates," Papers 2602.04815, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2602.04815
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2602.04815
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James Green-Armytage & T. Tideman & Rafael Cosman, 2016. "Statistical evaluation of voting rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(1), pages 183-212, January.
    2. Murat R. Sertel & M. Remzi Sanver, 2004. "Strong equilibrium outcomes of voting games ¶are the generalized Condorcet winners," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 22(2), pages 331-347, April.
    3. Mostapha Diss & Vincent Merlin (ed.), 2021. "Evaluating Voting Systems with Probability Models," Studies in Choice and Welfare, Springer, number 978-3-030-48598-6, December.
    4. DeMeyer, Frank & Plott, Charles R, 1970. "The Probability of a Cyclical Majority," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 38(2), pages 345-354, March.
    5. Lisa Sauermann, 2022. "On the probability of a Condorcet winner among a large number of alternatives," Papers 2203.13713, arXiv.org.
    6. 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.
    7. William V. Gehrlein & Dominique Lepelley, 2011. "Voting paradoxes and group coherence: the condorcet efficiency of voting rules," Post-Print hal-01243452, HAL.
    8. Ilia Tsetlin & Michel Regenwetter & Bernard Grofman, 2003. "The impartial culture maximizes the probability of majority cycles," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 21(3), pages 387-398, December.
    9. 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)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hervé Crès, 2000. "Aggregation of Coarse Preferences," Sciences Po Economics Publications (main) hal-01064879, HAL.
    2. Harrison-Trainor, Matthew, 2022. "An analysis of random elections with large numbers of voters," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 68-84.
    3. Regenwetter, Michel & Marley, A. A. J. & Grofman, Bernard, 2002. "A general concept of majority rule," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 405-428, July.
    4. Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, 2014. "Empirical social choice: an introduction," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 297-310, March.
    5. Hervé Crès, 2001. "Aggregation of coarse preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 18(3), pages 507-525.
    6. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/10286 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Lirong Xia, 2021. "The Smoothed Satisfaction of Voting Axioms," Papers 2106.01947, arXiv.org.
    8. 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.
    9. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/10286 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Adrian Deemen, 2014. "On the empirical relevance of Condorcet’s paradox," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 311-330, March.
    11. Hervé Crès, 2000. "Aggregation of Coarse Preferences," SciencePo Working papers hal-01064879, HAL.
    12. Benoît R. Kloeckner, 2022. "Cycles in synchronous iterative voting: general robustness and examples in Approval Voting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 59(2), pages 423-466, August.
    13. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa, 2019. "Simulations in Models of Preference Aggregation," Working Papers hal-02424936, HAL.
    14. Lachat, Romain & Laslier, Jean-François, 2024. "Alternatives to plurality rule for single-winner elections: When do they make a difference?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    15. Achill Schürmann, 2013. "Exploiting polyhedral symmetries in social choice," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(4), pages 1097-1110, April.
    16. 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.
    17. Sara Wolk & Jameson Quinn & Marcus Ogren, 2023. "STAR Voting, equality of voice, and voter satisfaction: considerations for voting method reform," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 310-334, September.
    18. Balasko, Yves & Cres, Herve, 1997. "The Probability of Condorcet Cycles and Super Majority Rules," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 237-270, August.
    19. Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit, 2023. "Split Cycle: a new Condorcet-consistent voting method independent of clones and immune to spoilers," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 197(1), pages 1-62, October.
    20. Shmuel Nitzan, 1985. "The vulnerability of point-voting schemes to preference variation and strategic manipulation," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 349-370, January.
    21. Raphael Gillett, 1980. "The comparative likelihood of an equivocal outcome under the plurality, Condorcet, and Borda voting procedures," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 483-491, January.
    22. Thérèse Embigne Killanga & Issofa Moyouwou & Boniface Mbih, 2025. "Plurality rule and Condorcet criterion over restricted domains," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 64(3), pages 633-663, May.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2602.04815. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.